South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 00:44
by popcorn
Since the F-35 is in no danger of being threatened by disqualification, a change is called for.

Boeing is still smarting from the recent turn of events and pins it's hopes on a split order despite clear indications that the SE is inadequate per ROKAF.
Funny that Boeing keeps singing it's "stealth has compromised the F-35" and "5Gen is a LM marketing slogan" when the customer isn't buying it and really places a high premium on stealth and the advanced capabilities of the jet.

As for an earlier delivery date, it's really up to the SOKOR government to expedite matters. The production line can easily accommodate a SK order.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 39.xml&p=1

...Muilenburg argues that for an assured price, an upgraded F-15 can offer Seoul a much-needed capability quickly. “The terminology ‘fifth-generation fighter’ is a convenient marketing tool” for Lockheed Martin, he says, referring to the F-35. “A lot of discussion has gone into all-aspect stealth. I prefer to talk about all-aspect fighters that are not compromised for stealth.” Though the Silent Eagle lacks all-aspect stealth, it is optimized for frontal aspect stealth and features a far superior ..payload and speed over the F-35, Muilenburg says.

RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 01:21
by quicksilver
The Commanding Officer of VMFAT501 -- having flown Hornets, Vipers, Raptor, and F-35 -- would disagree with Mr. Muilenberg.

But of course, some moron will claim he (the CO) is somehow under the influence of LM. :roll:

RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 02:50
by FlightDreamz
But the F-15SE was the only submission to make S. Korea's price point.

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 03:29
by cantaz
FlightDreamz wrote:But the F-15SE was the only submission to make S. Korea's price point.


At the expense of at least one major stealth feature (canted tails) and god knows what else.

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 05:26
by neurotech
quicksilver wrote:The Commanding Officer of VMFAT501 -- having flown Hornets, Vipers, Raptor, and F-35 -- would disagree with Mr. Muilenberg.

But of course, some moron will claim he (the CO) is somehow under the influence of LM. :roll:

Most pilots who actually fly the jet seem to like the F-35. Some are even F/A-18 pilots :D

RE: Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 10:40
by mk82
I do wonder if the Boeing guys are brave enough to fly their "Silent Eagle" into a S300 rich IADS...with minimal EW support :P?

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 17:15
by maus92
neurotech wrote:
quicksilver wrote:The Commanding Officer of VMFAT501 -- having flown Hornets, Vipers, Raptor, and F-35 -- would disagree with Mr. Muilenberg.

But of course, some moron will claim he (the CO) is somehow under the influence of LM. :roll:

Most pilots who actually fly the jet seem to like the F-35. Some are even F/A-18 pilots :D


Some.... Publicly not towing the party line would be a career ender.

RE: Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 17:54
by spazsinbad
Enough said I guess. :D

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 18:09
by neurotech
maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:
quicksilver wrote:The Commanding Officer of VMFAT501 -- having flown Hornets, Vipers, Raptor, and F-35 -- would disagree with Mr. Muilenberg.

But of course, some moron will claim he (the CO) is somehow under the influence of LM. :roll:

Most pilots who actually fly the jet seem to like the F-35. Some are even F/A-18 pilots :D


Some.... Publicly not towing the party line would be a career ender.

Can you hint at what the reasons are? Technical issues with the jet, performance vs a clean F/A-18 or limitations on the early jets limited envelope.

I know that some Boeing executives are still upset their X-32 didn't get selected, and Boeing touts the F-15SE as a F-35 alternative, but the avionics and mission systems are not at the level to justify a jet that isn't significantly cheaper (today, but not cheaper by 2020)

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 20:57
by gtx
maus92 wrote:
Some.... Publicly not towing the party line would be a career ender.


Is that really the best you can come up with?

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 21:33
by lookieloo
gtx wrote:
maus92 wrote:Some.... Publicly not towing the party line would be a career ender.
Is that really the best you can come up with?
While the concern trolling is annoying, pilots do have to watch what they say. Can you imagine what they must have thought about the Superhornet when it was new? Coming from any other legacy-type, it must have seemed like a complete dog (comparatively underpowered, pylons cocked half-face); fortunately for MD/Boeing, the internet was also a dog back then, so there was no need for public-affairs to do damage-control every time some paint flaked-off.

RE: Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 22:52
by neurotech
The Super Hornet had a few teething issues early on, and came close to being cancelled. It was sold as a low-cost, low-risk Hornet "variant", but was basically a new jet. The avionics was basically transplanted from a F/A-18C/D already in service.

Stores separation and clearance issues created headaches and required the pylons to be canted more than the earlier F/A-18s. This was a trade-off to allow standard pylons to be used early on. They tested pylons with stronger separation force and other improvements but not implement them into the fleet. Transonic roll-off was another major issue, as was wing-drop in landing configuration.


Even though the internet commentary wasn't the same back in the late 90s, Congress still gave Boeing a lot of flak over certain issues, so thats not new to the F-35.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2013, 05:29
by Conan
popcorn wrote:Since the F-35 is in no danger of being threatened by disqualification, a change is called for.

Boeing is still smarting from the recent turn of events and pins it's hopes on a split order despite clear indications that the SE is inadequate per ROKAF.
Funny that Boeing keeps singing it's "stealth has compromised the F-35" and "5Gen is a LM marketing slogan" when the customer isn't buying it and really places a high premium on stealth and the advanced capabilities of the jet.

As for an earlier delivery date, it's really up to the SOKOR government to expedite matters. The production line can easily accommodate a SK order.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 39.xml&p=1

...Muilenburg argues that for an assured price, an upgraded F-15 can offer Seoul a much-needed capability quickly. “The terminology ‘fifth-generation fighter’ is a convenient marketing tool” for Lockheed Martin, he says, referring to the F-35. “A lot of discussion has gone into all-aspect stealth. I prefer to talk about all-aspect fighters that are not compromised for stealth.” Though the Silent Eagle lacks all-aspect stealth, it is optimized for frontal aspect stealth and features a far superior ..payload and speed over the F-35, Muilenburg says.


So let me get this right. "5th Generation" is a Lockheed Martin marketing term when it's applied to F-35 but it wasn't a marketing term when it was applied to Boeing's intended F-32?

Right....

Where is Soloman and BS to swallow this BS hook, line and sinker, eh?

RE: Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2013, 05:52
by gtx
Oh BS doesn't just swallow it...he actively preaches it.

Re: RE: Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2013, 15:54
by sferrin
gtx wrote:Oh BS doesn't just swallow it...he actively preaches it.


Same with Solomon. After he didn't just swallow the bait but pretty much threaded himself on the line, he's become Bill's latest sychophant.

Re: RE: Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2013, 20:54
by lookieloo
sferrin wrote:Same with Solomon. After he didn't just swallow the bait but pretty much threaded himself on the line, he's become Bill's latest sychophant.
Soloman was every bit the idiot supporting JSF as he is opposing it. More interesting is ELP's response to Korean developments... not a single word. Apparently, he's decided to pretend that none of it happened.

As for a split-buy, I would understand if the Koreans saw fit to grab a few more Slam-Eagles in the short-term, but the SE still seems pointless.

Re: RE: Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2013, 23:42
by sferrin
lookieloo wrote:
sferrin wrote:Same with Solomon. After he didn't just swallow the bait but pretty much threaded himself on the line, he's become Bill's latest sychophant.
Soloman was every bit the idiot supporting JSF as he is opposing it. More interesting is ELP's response to Korean developments... not a single word. Apparently, he's decided to pretend that none of it happened.

As for a split-buy, I would understand if the Koreans saw fit to grab a few more Slam-Eagles in the short-term, but the SE still seems pointless.


Yep. Back in the late days of F-22 production he was all up in arms about how the F-22 needed to die, die, DIE because the F-35 was where it's at. Not an original thought in that poor boy's head. :lol:

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 00:10
by FlightDreamz
cantaz wrote:
FlightDreamz wrote:But the F-15SE was the only submission to make S. Korea's price point.

At the expense of at least one major stealth feature (canted tails) and god knows what else.

True but you don't need all the "bell's & whistles" to counter North Korea's (almost non-existent) fighter force/threat.
mk82 wrote:I do wonder if the Boeing guys are brave enough to fly their "Silent Eagle" into a S300 rich IADS...with minimal EW support :P?

Fair point, but you could just as easily say the same about the F-35 or any of the other contenders. And why minimal EW support, the F-15 comes with a proven EW suite, the F-35 not so much (and yeah I know STEALTH! But they're still working the kinks out of the design trying to get to a full production rate).
neurotech wrote:I know that some Boeing executives are still upset their X-32 didn't get selected, and Boeing touts the F-15SE as a F-35 alternative, but the avionics and mission systems are not at the level to justify a jet that isn't significantly cheaper (today, but not cheaper by 2020)

True but it could act as a "bridge" to possibly purchasing F-35 Lightning II's later on, when it's in full production and the cost per plane is finalized (and hopefully lower). Just my :2c:

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 00:35
by lookieloo
FlightDreamz wrote:
cantaz wrote:
FlightDreamz wrote:But the F-15SE was the only submission to make S. Korea's price point.
At the expense of at least one major stealth feature (canted tails) and god knows what else.
True but you don't need all the "bell's & whistles" to counter North Korea's (almost non-existent) fighter force/threat.
Right... that's definitely what they're out to counter... because we all know that A2A performance vs the Kims is what should really matter to South Korea over the long-term. :roll:

Re: RE: Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2013, 01:36
by count_to_10
sferrin wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
sferrin wrote:Same with Solomon. After he didn't just swallow the bait but pretty much threaded himself on the line, he's become Bill's latest sychophant.
Soloman was every bit the idiot supporting JSF as he is opposing it. More interesting is ELP's response to Korean developments... not a single word. Apparently, he's decided to pretend that none of it happened.

As for a split-buy, I would understand if the Koreans saw fit to grab a few more Slam-Eagles in the short-term, but the SE still seems pointless.


Yep. Back in the late days of F-22 production he was all up in arms about how the F-22 needed to die, die, DIE because the F-35 was where it's at. Not an original thought in that poor boy's head. :lol:

So, a pattern then?
There are certain people that are always against whatever technology the military is currently pursuing, and will use whatever excuse is at hand to disparage it.

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 00:15
by FlightDreamz
lookieloo wrote:
FlightDreamz wrote:
cantaz wrote:
FlightDreamz wrote:But the F-15SE was the only submission to make S. Korea's price point.
At the expense of at least one major stealth feature (canted tails) and god knows what else.
True but you don't need all the "bell's & whistles" to counter North Korea's (almost non-existent) fighter force/threat.
Right... that's definitely what they're out to counter... because we all know that A2A performance vs the Kims is what should really matter to South Korea over the long-term. :roll:

Still think the F-15SE could act as a "bridge" to future stealth purchase's later on. And it's bomb-hauling capability, Electronic Warfare suite, range, and yes air-to-air capabilities are known quantities. Boeing's fly-away price seems firmer to me as well. Not so much with the F-35, in the future certainly, but it's not quite there yet.

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 01:54
by maus92
gtx wrote:
maus92 wrote:
Some.... Publicly not towing the party line would be a career ender.


Is that really the best you can come up with?


@gtx
@lookieloo


Read "The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard" by Bradley, and get back to me. It's a book, available at many base libraries.

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 02:30
by quicksilver
maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:
quicksilver wrote:The Commanding Officer of VMFAT501 -- having flown Hornets, Vipers, Raptor, and F-35 -- would disagree with Mr. Muilenberg.

But of course, some moron will claim he (the CO) is somehow under the influence of LM. :roll:

Most pilots who actually fly the jet seem to like the F-35. Some are even F/A-18 pilots :D


Some.... Publicly not towing the party line would be a career ender.


Close enough. I rest my case...

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 02:44
by quicksilver
lookieloo wrote:
gtx wrote:
maus92 wrote:Some.... Publicly not towing the party line would be a career ender.
Is that really the best you can come up with?
While the concern trolling is annoying, pilots do have to watch what they say. Can you imagine what they must have thought about the Superhornet when it was new? Coming from any other legacy-type, it must have seemed like a complete dog (comparatively underpowered, pylons cocked half-face); fortunately for MD/Boeing, the internet was also a dog back then, so there was no need for public-affairs to do damage-control every time some paint flaked-off.


We don't have to imagine -- it's documented in the GAO reports of the period that catalog the deficiencies identified in test. Many of those deficiencies remain today.

Wanna see some big toes lined up on a party line -- go hang out at Tailhook. Navy Tacair has become homogenized -- Hornets, Hornets, and electronic Hornets.

No group think going on there... :wink:

Re: RE: Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 02:47
by quicksilver
neurotech wrote:The Super Hornet had a few teething issues early on, and came close to being cancelled. It was sold as a low-cost, low-risk Hornet "variant", but was basically a new jet. The avionics was basically transplanted from a F/A-18C/D already in service.

Stores separation and clearance issues created headaches and required the pylons to be canted more than the earlier F/A-18s. This was a trade-off to allow standard pylons to be used early on. They tested pylons with stronger separation force and other improvements but not implement them into the fleet. Transonic roll-off was another major issue, as was wing-drop in landing configuration.


Even though the internet commentary wasn't the same back in the late 90s, Congress still gave Boeing a lot of flak over certain issues, so thats not new to the F-35.


The scrutiny that SH got in the 90s pales in comparison to what F-35 has been through.

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 03:44
by popcorn
What happens if Boeing and Cassidian change their minds and decline to participate in a future bidding? Presumably the SK government can negotiate a sole-source pricurement in the interest of National Security.

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 05:33
by lookieloo
FlightDreamz wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
FlightDreamz wrote:
cantaz wrote:
FlightDreamz wrote:But the F-15SE was the only submission to make S. Korea's price point.
At the expense of at least one major stealth feature (canted tails) and god knows what else.
True but you don't need all the "bell's & whistles" to counter North Korea's (almost non-existent) fighter force/threat.
Right... that's definitely what they're out to counter... because we all know that A2A performance vs the Kims is what should really matter to South Korea over the long-term. :roll:
Still think the F-15SE could act as a "bridge" to future stealth purchase's later on. And it's bomb-hauling capability, Electronic Warfare suite, range, and yes air-to-air capabilities are known quantities. Boeing's fly-away price seems firmer to me as well. Not so much with the F-35, in the future certainly, but it's not quite there yet.
So now you're switching to the low-risk bomb-truck angle, which as I've already pointed out, would be better served with a quick F-15K purchase if NK were the only concern. Hell, FA-50s would be good enough were that the case (and hella cheaper). SE (firm price my a$$) has absolutely no reason to exist outside SK's embarrassing attempt to haggle the DoD on JSF pricing, and it failed miserably.

If Boeing wanted to remain in the fighter market past 2020, they should have focused on winning non-VLO competitions vs Eurocanards and Flankers after losing the JSF contest, not sad attempts to "me too" LM on "stealth" (no one really buys it). Lacking in signature, they should have been working on up-engined versions of what they already had, but they didn't, leaving them kinematically weak vs foreign competitors in places where the F-35 generates little interest.

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 05:39
by lookieloo
deteted

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 20:42
by cantaz
FlightDreamz wrote:Still think the F-15SE could act as a "bridge" to future stealth purchase's later on.


The point is that the F-15SE is so dubiously "Silent" that it doesn't seem to bridge much into stealth capability/operation at all. Why not just buy more F-15K at instead of paying a premium to try and pretend at being stealthy.

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 21:03
by gtx
maus92 wrote:
gtx wrote:
maus92 wrote:
@gtx
@lookieloo


Read "The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard" by Bradley, and get back to me. It's a book, available at many base libraries.


Well duh!!! Have book. Read it many years ago. Have you...or did you only watch the movie of the same name?

Have also served in military and have been involved with OT&E. What's your claim to fame?

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 21:46
by sferrin
lookieloo wrote:If Boeing wanted to remain in the fighter market past 2020, they should have focused on winning non-VLO competitions vs Eurocanards and Flankers after losing the JSF contest, not sad attempts to "me too" LM on "stealth" (no one really buys it). Lacking in signature, they should have been working on up-engined versions of what they already had, but they didn't, leaving them kinematically weak vs foreign competitors in places where the F-35 generates little interest.


An F-15 MANX with a pair of 37,000lb F100-232s, 3D TVC, a big fat AESA, and an IRST. Win.

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 00:09
by maus92
gtx wrote:
maus92 wrote:
gtx wrote:
maus92 wrote:
@gtx
@lookieloo


Read "The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard" by Bradley, and get back to me. It's a book, available at many base libraries.


Well duh!!! Have book. Read it many years ago. Have you...or did you only watch the movie of the same name?

Have also served in military and have been involved with OT&E. What's your claim to fame?



Then you should understand.

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 04:13
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote:
Read "The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard" by Bradley, and get back to me. It's a book, available at many base libraries.


And what a horrid little tale it is. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone without serious caveats. Such as only if the reader is interested in:
1. Culture clash fallout when AF and Army test philosophies meet. Traditionally, the AF uses testing and modeling results to grade possible designs and solutions. The Army traditionally has used results to merely inform decision makers.
2. Arsenal Bureaucracy Case Studies. This case belongs with the Spencer Repeater and M-16 stories about how slow and closed to new ideas Army arsenals can be. It is hardly representative of all of the Army, Air Force, or pretty much any other DoD sub-culture behaviors. Some of the problematic test aspects Burton describes were identical to a problem an Army researcher pointed out as something that needed changing years (decades?) before on another test program (Anti-armor shape charge).
3. Consequences of not choosing your friends wisely. Burton never should have let himself get sucked into the reform-school gang of reformers. And never let them help you with your book.
4. An example of the norm. It is rare indeed that someone truly is appreciated for his making the tough stand. Honorable people do it thousands of times every day knowing full well there could/will be blowback. Those with big egos for some reason get upset when it happens to them and cry about it. Those who get the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow are the insufferable exceptions. N.N. Taleb (among others) likes to point out that the positive results of the ~.1% are trumpeted and the other ~99.9% who fall away are left unseen. Its called Survivorship Bias.

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 06:21
by maus92
smsgtmac wrote:
maus92 wrote:
Read "The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard" by Bradley, and get back to me. It's a book, available at many base libraries.


And what a horrid little tale it is. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone without serious caveats. Such as only if the reader is interested in:
1. Culture clash fallout when AF and Army test philosophies meet. Traditionally, the AF uses testing and modeling results to grade possible designs and solutions. The Army traditionally has used results to merely inform decision makers.
2. Arsenal Bureaucracy Case Studies. This case belongs with the Spencer Repeater and M-16 stories about how slow and closed to new ideas Army arsenals can be. It is hardly representative of all of the Army, Air Force, or pretty much any other DoD sub-culture behaviors. Some of the problematic test aspects Burton describes were identical to a problem an Army researcher pointed out as something that needed changing years (decades?) before on another test program (Anti-armor shape charge).
3. Consequences of not choosing your friends wisely. Burton never should have let himself get sucked into the reform-school gang of reformers. And never let them help you with your book.
4. An example of the norm. It is rare indeed that someone truly is appreciated for his making the tough stand. Honorable people do it thousands of times every day knowing full well there could/will be blowback. Those with big egos for some reason get upset when it happens to them and cry about it. Those who get the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow are the insufferable exceptions. N.N. Taleb (among others) likes to point out that the positive results of the ~.1% are trumpeted and the other ~99.9% who fall away are left unseen. Its called Survivorship Bias.



Don't like Bradley? - then you definitely won't like Jankowski.

RE: Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 06:47
by Corsair1963
I think Boeing may have just shot themselves in the foot with this talk of a split buy of F-35's and F-15SE's. Because if the ROKAF really wanted a Stop Gap until the arrival of the F-35's. Why not just incorporate the F-15SE Stealth features into South Korea existing fleet of F-15K's!!!! :bang:

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 06:55
by lookieloo
gtx wrote:
maus92 wrote:@gtx
@lookieloo

Read "The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard" by Bradley, and get back to me. It's a book, available at many base libraries.
Well duh!!! Have book. Read it many years ago. Have you...or did you only watch the movie of the same name?

Have also served in military and have been involved with OT&E. What's your claim to fame?
He wants a pat on the head for reading a book (that fits his preconceptions of the military) and applying it to a poorly related situation. Here it is.vvv That's a good boy; now come back with some context and we'll give you some bacon.

Image

Re: RE: Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 07:26
by lookieloo
Corsair1963 wrote:I think Boeing may have just shot themselves in the foot with this talk of a split buy of F-35's and F-15SE's. Because if the ROKAF really wanted a Stop Gap until the arrival of the F-35's. Why not just incorporate the F-15SE Stealth features into South Korea existing fleet of F-15K's!!!! :bang:
Doesn't keep the factory doors open. As I already mentioned, there's really no excuse for not having significantly up-rated F-15s and Superhornets already set to go. It's been 12 years since Boeing lost JSF, 12 years during which they twiddled their thumbs and fell behind foreign offerings for customers less concerned with VLO and worried about F-35 delays.

Re: RE: Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 07:30
by Corsair1963
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I think Boeing may have just shot themselves in the foot with this talk of a split buy of F-35's and F-15SE's. Because if the ROKAF really wanted a Stop Gap until the arrival of the F-35's. Why not just incorporate the F-15SE Stealth features into South Korea existing fleet of F-15K's!!!! :bang:
Doesn't keep the factory doors open. As I already mentioned, there's really no excuse for not having significantly up-rated F-15s and Superhornets already set to go. It's been 12 years since Boeing lost JSF, 12 years during which they twiddled their thumbs and fell behind foreign offerings for customers less concerned with VLO and worried about F-35 delays.



So, Boeing should have paid for the development of further upgraded Strike Eagles and Super Hornets??? :?:

Re: RE: Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 08:21
by lookieloo
Corsair1963 wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I think Boeing may have just shot themselves in the foot with this talk of a split buy of F-35's and F-15SE's. Because if the ROKAF really wanted a Stop Gap until the arrival of the F-35's. Why not just incorporate the F-15SE Stealth features into South Korea existing fleet of F-15K's!!!! :bang:
Doesn't keep the factory doors open. As I already mentioned, there's really no excuse for not having significantly up-rated F-15s and Superhornets already set to go. It's been 12 years since Boeing lost JSF, 12 years during which they twiddled their thumbs and fell behind foreign offerings for customers less concerned with VLO and worried about F-35 delays.
So, Boeing should have paid for the development of further upgraded Strike Eagles and Super Hornets??? :?:
Hard to say. There's been plenty of government-funded subsystems and research out there to work with, even before JSF; so it's not as if they would have been required to develop everything from scratch. Deliberate, incremental integration of upgrades has defrayed costs for other manufacturers with fewer resources and less government-support than Boeing.

Re: RE: Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 09:58
by Corsair1963
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I think Boeing may have just shot themselves in the foot with this talk of a split buy of F-35's and F-15SE's. Because if the ROKAF really wanted a Stop Gap until the arrival of the F-35's. Why not just incorporate the F-15SE Stealth features into South Korea existing fleet of F-15K's!!!! :bang:
Doesn't keep the factory doors open. As I already mentioned, there's really no excuse for not having significantly up-rated F-15s and Superhornets already set to go. It's been 12 years since Boeing lost JSF, 12 years during which they twiddled their thumbs and fell behind foreign offerings for customers less concerned with VLO and worried about F-35 delays.
So, Boeing should have paid for the development of further upgraded Strike Eagles and Super Hornets??? :?:
Hard to say. There's been plenty of government-funded subsystems and research out there to work with, even before JSF; so it's not as if they would have been required to develop everything from scratch. Deliberate, incremental integration of upgrades has defrayed costs for other manufacturers with fewer resources and less government-support than Boeing.


May all be true but Boeing missed the boat sometime ago and the South Korean cancellation of the F-15SE is just the writing on the wall.... :?

Re: RE: Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 10:25
by lookieloo
Corsair1963 wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I think Boeing may have just shot themselves in the foot with this talk of a split buy of F-35's and F-15SE's. Because if the ROKAF really wanted a Stop Gap until the arrival of the F-35's. Why not just incorporate the F-15SE Stealth features into South Korea existing fleet of F-15K's!!!! :bang:
Doesn't keep the factory doors open. As I already mentioned, there's really no excuse for not having significantly up-rated F-15s and Superhornets already set to go. It's been 12 years since Boeing lost JSF, 12 years during which they twiddled their thumbs and fell behind foreign offerings for customers less concerned with VLO and worried about F-35 delays.
So, Boeing should have paid for the development of further upgraded Strike Eagles and Super Hornets??? :?:
Hard to say. There's been plenty of government-funded subsystems and research out there to work with, even before JSF; so it's not as if they would have been required to develop everything from scratch. Deliberate, incremental integration of upgrades has defrayed costs for other manufacturers with fewer resources and less government-support than Boeing.
May all be true but Boeing missed the boat sometime ago and the South Korean cancellation of the F-15SE is just the writing on the wall.... :?
Hard to argue with that.

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2013, 13:32
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote:
smsgtmac wrote:
maus92 wrote:
Read "The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard" by Bradley, and get back to me. It's a book, available at many base libraries.


And what a horrid little tale it is. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone without serious caveats. Such as only if the reader is interested in:
1. Culture clash fallout when AF and Army test philosophies meet. Traditionally, the AF uses testing and modeling results to grade possible designs and solutions. The Army traditionally has used results to merely inform decision makers.
2. Arsenal Bureaucracy Case Studies. This case belongs with the Spencer Repeater and M-16 stories about how slow and closed to new ideas Army arsenals can be. It is hardly representative of all of the Army, Air Force, or pretty much any other DoD sub-culture behaviors. Some of the problematic test aspects Burton describes were identical to a problem an Army researcher pointed out as something that needed changing years (decades?) before on another test program (Anti-armor shape charge).
3. Consequences of not choosing your friends wisely. Burton never should have let himself get sucked into the reform-school gang of reformers. And never let them help you with your book.
4. An example of the norm. It is rare indeed that someone truly is appreciated for his making the tough stand. Honorable people do it thousands of times every day knowing full well there could/will be blowback. Those with big egos for some reason get upset when it happens to them and cry about it. Those who get the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow are the insufferable exceptions. N.N. Taleb (among others) likes to point out that the positive results of the ~.1% are trumpeted and the other ~99.9% who fall away are left unseen. Its called Survivorship Bias.



Don't like Bradley? - then you definitely won't like Jankowski.


I assume you mean Thaddeus Jankowski? Yep. His (and far too many others) problem is he thinks civilian 'management' theory is directly applicable to the military world. He possesses inconsequential knowledge that he tries to apply consequentially. He's like a am USMC version of the AFs Dan Ward. :)

BTW: I know you meant 'Burton' not 'Bradley' so I didn't say anything the first time. But others may read this and want to look up who we're talking about, so they need to know it is Col Burton. If you want to read the sine qua non of organizational insurgency read Bergerson's "The Army Gets an Air Force". Rationalization like you've never read before, but no where does it adequately defend such insurgency as 'right'. (One reason why I loathe Social 'Scientists'.)

South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2013, 12:48
by rkap
Read a Korean article. [Strategy site I think.]
He said the Airforce in Korea did want the F15SE which they considered good enough to penetrate NK and handle the NK air force fro a long time. Under there procurement system though a Civilian panel has the last say and often Economics is the main consideration. They expect technology exchange and offsets. Boeing was offering very little in this area.
This he said does not mean the F35 now has a better chance since they can't offer much in the way of offsets and definitely will not offer any technology exchange. His contention is that overall Military Strategy in SK is turning more and more to home Produced SAM's for defense and Missiles to take out NK artillery etc. They are still developing better versions with Russian technical help. They don't really take the NK Air-force seriously. What really worries them is the enormous amount of artillery and number of troops NK has. Ranges being short small cheap missiles are now considered an ideal way of taking out that artillery etc. The fact they have developed there own SAM's and Missiles with Russian help is a big selling point with the Civilian panel. He said the SK - Army and Navy are getting all the money they want to buy these home made SAM's and Missiles. The Civilian panel is in favor of this since all the $'s stay in SK.
He predicts they will in the end probably build there own aircraft. All they need is one good enough to handle the NK airforce and provide good ground support should ever 1-2 million troops come swarming over the border but not too good to worry China or Japan. [SK still does not trust Japan] He said at present the only company after all the messing about they have done that may help them in the technology area is Saab. It will be interesting to see what happens. Possibly he is correct.

RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2013, 20:55
by gtx
Link to said article?

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2013, 22:36
by maus92
smsgtmac wrote:
maus92 wrote:
smsgtmac wrote:
maus92 wrote:
Read "The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard" by Bradley, and get back to me. It's a book, available at many base libraries.


And what a horrid little tale it is. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone without serious caveats. Such as only if the reader is interested in:
1. Culture clash fallout when AF and Army test philosophies meet. Traditionally, the AF uses testing and modeling results to grade possible designs and solutions. The Army traditionally has used results to merely inform decision makers.
2. Arsenal Bureaucracy Case Studies. This case belongs with the Spencer Repeater and M-16 stories about how slow and closed to new ideas Army arsenals can be. It is hardly representative of all of the Army, Air Force, or pretty much any other DoD sub-culture behaviors. Some of the problematic test aspects Burton describes were identical to a problem an Army researcher pointed out as something that needed changing years (decades?) before on another test program (Anti-armor shape charge).
3. Consequences of not choosing your friends wisely. Burton never should have let himself get sucked into the reform-school gang of reformers. And never let them help you with your book.
4. An example of the norm. It is rare indeed that someone truly is appreciated for his making the tough stand. Honorable people do it thousands of times every day knowing full well there could/will be blowback. Those with big egos for some reason get upset when it happens to them and cry about it. Those who get the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow are the insufferable exceptions. N.N. Taleb (among others) likes to point out that the positive results of the ~.1% are trumpeted and the other ~99.9% who fall away are left unseen. Its called Survivorship Bias.



Don't like Bradley? - then you definitely won't like Jankowski.


I assume you mean Thaddeus Jankowski? Yep. His (and far too many others) problem is he thinks civilian 'management' theory is directly applicable to the military world. He possesses inconsequential knowledge that he tries to apply consequentially. He's like a am USMC version of the AFs Dan Ward. :)

BTW: I know you meant 'Burton' not 'Bradley' so I didn't say anything the first time. But others may read this and want to look up who we're talking about, so they need to know it is Col Burton. If you want to read the sine qua non of organizational insurgency read Bergerson's "The Army Gets an Air Force". Rationalization like you've never read before, but no where does it adequately defend such insurgency as 'right'. (One reason why I loathe Social 'Scientists'.)


Thanks for the catch re: Burton. Probably had the APC on my brain when I wrote it - unfortunately I'd given his book away a move or two ago, and was relying on memory and just repeated the error. Anyway, the point behind the references is to *encourage* people to search out the material and get more familiar with structural and cultural issues within the Pentagon, and how they affect acquisition decisions and policy. Some clearly have seen the material and discounted it, while others may come to a different conclusion.

Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 03:00
by hb_pencil
maus92 wrote:
smsgtmac wrote:
maus92 wrote:
smsgtmac wrote:
maus92 wrote:
Read "The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard" by Bradley, and get back to me. It's a book, available at many base libraries.


And what a horrid little tale it is. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone without serious caveats. Such as only if the reader is interested in:
1. Culture clash fallout when AF and Army test philosophies meet. Traditionally, the AF uses testing and modeling results to grade possible designs and solutions. The Army traditionally has used results to merely inform decision makers.
2. Arsenal Bureaucracy Case Studies. This case belongs with the Spencer Repeater and M-16 stories about how slow and closed to new ideas Army arsenals can be. It is hardly representative of all of the Army, Air Force, or pretty much any other DoD sub-culture behaviors. Some of the problematic test aspects Burton describes were identical to a problem an Army researcher pointed out as something that needed changing years (decades?) before on another test program (Anti-armor shape charge).
3. Consequences of not choosing your friends wisely. Burton never should have let himself get sucked into the reform-school gang of reformers. And never let them help you with your book.
4. An example of the norm. It is rare indeed that someone truly is appreciated for his making the tough stand. Honorable people do it thousands of times every day knowing full well there could/will be blowback. Those with big egos for some reason get upset when it happens to them and cry about it. Those who get the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow are the insufferable exceptions. N.N. Taleb (among others) likes to point out that the positive results of the ~.1% are trumpeted and the other ~99.9% who fall away are left unseen. Its called Survivorship Bias.



Don't like Bradley? - then you definitely won't like Jankowski.


I assume you mean Thaddeus Jankowski? Yep. His (and far too many others) problem is he thinks civilian 'management' theory is directly applicable to the military world. He possesses inconsequential knowledge that he tries to apply consequentially. He's like a am USMC version of the AFs Dan Ward. :)

BTW: I know you meant 'Burton' not 'Bradley' so I didn't say anything the first time. But others may read this and want to look up who we're talking about, so they need to know it is Col Burton. If you want to read the sine qua non of organizational insurgency read Bergerson's "The Army Gets an Air Force". Rationalization like you've never read before, but no where does it adequately defend such insurgency as 'right'. (One reason why I loathe Social 'Scientists'.)


Thanks for the catch re: Burton. Probably had the APC on my brain when I wrote it - unfortunately I'd given his book away a move or two ago, and was relying on memory and just repeated the error. Anyway, the point behind the references is to *encourage* people to search out the material and get more familiar with structural and cultural issues within the Pentagon, and how they affect acquisition decisions and policy. Some clearly have seen the material and discounted it, while others may come to a different conclusion.


Thing is, we are over thirty years away from the events that the book discusses. In terms of management processes we're probably two if not three generations away from what that book discusses. Its written about pre-Goldwater Nichols events,with the wholesale changes that act introduced: the organizational structure is much more delineated than before. It predate the whole performance metrics revolution introduced in the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) in 1993. Consequently government executives are much better able to manage their workforces and hit metrics. You have the Nunn McCurdy Provision (which fits somewhere within that timeframe, but its effects are particularly noticeable after 1990.) that introduced much more effective oversight into procurement. A number of projects have been cancelled as a result of a Nunn McCurdy breach.

Finally we have a acquisitions workforce that is literally a light year ahead of anything back then. The establishment of the DAU and comprehensive education effort for all government executives. Rear Adm. David Venlet had a MS in Aerospace Engineering and a degree from the Naval Postgraduate school. This is Lt. General Bogdans' educational resume:


EDUCATION
1983 Distinguished graduate, Bachelor of Science degree in aeronautical engineering, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo.
1989 Distinguished graduate, Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala.
1990 Distinguished graduate, Air Force Test Pilot School, Edwards AFB, Calif.
1994 Master of Science degree in engineering management, with distinction, California State University, Northridge
1995 Distinguished graduate, Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Ala.
1998 Air War College, by correspondence
2000 Distinguished graduate, Master of Science degree in national resource strategy, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C.
2005 Advanced Program Managers Course, Defense Systems Management College, Fort Belvoir, Va.
2006 Air Force Senior Leadership Course, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, N.C.
2007 National Security Management Course, Maxwell School of Citizenship, Syracuse University, N.Y.


I'd wonder if you went back to the 1980s, how many program execs had 1/2 of this resume? I know most would probably have a bachelors, staff college degree, and that's it. And I think this educational effort is showing up in vastly improved management outcomes.

So to sum up what has changed: Oversight has dramatically improved, Management culture is much more rigorous and education focused on the needs of the student. Its not even close to the same.

I'll be perfectly frank with you. I think if you think that Defence procurement today is ANYTHING like what was portrayed in Pentagon Wars, I think you have an extremely biased perspective. The book was written at probably the height of waste and mismanagement culture in DoD, best exemplified by that Time magazine article that cited the $800 dollar screwdriver. I think the past 30 years has seen tremendous change, towards a more exacting and effective acquisition process.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But as someone who is deeply interested and fairly conversant in the nature of defence procurement in the United States, its nowhere near what is described in the Pentagon wars. And that's also if you assume if defence procurement actually looked like that in the 1970s and 80s. As this thread makes clear, people don't accept much of it at face value. Having also read other works from the "defence reform movement" I feel they are often biased in order to force the reader to accept the the authors' viewpoint. I wasn't really around back then, but I can tell you its changed for over the 10 to 20 I've looked at this area.


For me, I think its more interesting to look at some of the ground assumptions that make defence procurement that much more difficult to manage than the civil sector. Gansler's Defence Industry is much more instructive about the broader structural issues that affect problems in this field.

RE: Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 06:09
by blindpilot
hb_pencil noted : "I wasn't really around back then, but I can tell you its changed for over the 10 to 20 I've looked at this area."

I was around back then, and my brother continued in service to manage major Air Force programs with familiar names you would recognize into the Iraq war times. He still is connected today as a consulting contractor (not Lockheed or Boeing :D :D ) to the issues you address.

You have it right.

In my humble (but not uninformed) opinion.

BP

RE: Re: RE: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 16:13
by neurotech
I agree with hb_pencil.

Things changed significantly for the JSF program under Sec. Gates. He wasn't willing to accept cost-overruns and problems without solutions. Vice Admiral Venlet had a distinguished career in the fleet, as a test pilot and then as a project manager. I do agree that the management education at the top makes a difference. Lt. Gen. Bogdan didn't get where he was by accepting things "the way they are" and sat down and worked though the problems, some privately, some publicly.

I notice mis-management in major IT projects a lot, and in some sectors cost overrun and schedule slips have become the norm, and the response is to bring in another layer of "management consultants" to write a report.

I have no doubt that If I sat down with Lt.Gen. Bogdan and asked him about the various systems (eg. Helmet) on the F-35 he'd have the knowledge to understand the technology of those systems. What details he can reveal is a separate question. In traditional management courses, technical understanding takes a back seat to management theory, but that wouldn't cut it for the JSF program.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 17:20
by maus92
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

While I absolutely agree that the acquisition process has become more sophisticated, there are fundamental issues that have not changed. As Jankowski points out in his series, some internal Pentagon *conditions* that affected the Bradley acquisition of the 70s/80s repeated themselves with MRAPs in the 2000s. Just by growing the process doesn't always get you the desired results.

Only continued self examination, better intergovernmental reporting and independent audit can hope to ferret out underperformance hidden by those persons or entities that benefit from the status quo.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 19:47
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote: Only continued self examination, better intergovernmental reporting and independent audit can hope to ferret out underperformance hidden by those persons or entities that benefit from the status quo.

Really Well, I guess that's one person's worldview in a nutshell .

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 20:05
by lookieloo
smsgtmac wrote:
maus92 wrote: Only continued self examination, better intergovernmental reporting and independent audit can hope to ferret out underperformance hidden by those persons or entities that benefit from the status quo.
Really Well, I guess that's one person's worldview in a nutshell .
Come-on... it's cute. Hipsters are so earnest.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 20:20
by gtx
maus92 wrote:better intergovernmental reporting and independent audit can hope to ferret out underperformance hidden by those persons or entities that benefit from the status quo.


The risk with this is that in some cases (and I have seen it happen with some quality audits) is that you risk developing a set of people/organisations with a culture of always looking for things that are "wrong". This is not to say that critical reviews and the like aren't needed/welcomed, but at some point one can risk getting a point of diminishing returns.

In other words, in some cases such people/organisations won't be happy unless they find things that are wrong and only report them without taking the big picture/whole of system view. Moreover, sometimes the effort/cost to correct the so-called deficiencies might outweigh the supposed benefit derived.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 21:07
by lookieloo
gtx wrote:
maus92 wrote:better intergovernmental reporting and independent audit can hope to ferret out underperformance hidden by those persons or entities that benefit from the status quo.
The risk with this is that in some cases (and I have seen it happen with some quality audits) is that you risk developing a set of people/organisations with a culture of always looking for things that are "wrong".
That's the culture monitoring agencies are supposed to have. The trouble comes when the peanut-gallery takes everything they say as holy gospel, as if same people who audit Medicaid are somehow the final authority on how to build a jet. One brings in outsiders to get an outsider view unsullied by career considerations and cronyism. Sometimes they find something embarrassing (like an $800 screwdriver) and the problem gets fixed; but one should never lose sight of the fact that such people are GENERALISTS, not qualified experts. The authority invested by journalists in un-elected, unqualified bureaucrats is galling; an alien monitoring defense-publications could be forgiven for assuming that the GAO is our chief governing body.

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 03:32
by smsgtmac
As an aside, I've scoured sources for years and NEVER found an authoritative reference that accurately cites wherever the "$800 screwdriver" episode occurred. Same for "$600" screwdrivers, or any other $ cost except a ~$250 screwdriver --and that wasn't even the real cost without overhead (equal or unequal/proportional) allocation. There WAS the $800 "Toilet Seat" that wasn't(Irate congressmen shaking a retail household toilet seat in Act II of Acquisition Theater non-withstanding), and a $435 Hammer that was also affected by the overhead allocation and was really reasonably priced once you just counted the base price of the tool.
I've come to the conclusion that the terminally offended just like the way 'screwdriver' flowed from the mouth and liked the $800 value attached to the "Toilet Seat" (again: that wasn't) because it was larger. The perverted facts get passed around and twisted a little more until eventually "Why EVERYONE JUST KNOWS the DoD wastes money on EVERYTHING they buy."
I consider this widespread and erroneous sentiment one of the greatest disinformation campaign successes of the so-called 'reformers' in the 80's.

That and "You have to fly low and slow to do CAS". :wink:

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2013, 22:46
by neurotech
smsgtmac wrote:As an aside, I've scoured sources for years and NEVER found an authoritative reference that accurately cites wherever the "$800 screwdriver" episode occurred. Same for "$600" screwdrivers, or any other $ cost except a ~$250 screwdriver --and that wasn't even the real cost without overhead (equal or unequal/proportional) allocation. There WAS the $800 "Toilet Seat" that wasn't(Irate congressmen shaking a retail household toilet seat in Act II of Acquisition Theater non-withstanding), and a $435 Hammer that was also affected by the overhead allocation and was really reasonably priced once you just counted the base price of the tool.
I've come to the conclusion that the terminally offended just like the way 'screwdriver' flowed from the mouth and liked the $800 value attached to the "Toilet Seat" (again: that wasn't) because it was larger. The perverted facts get passed around and twisted a little more until eventually "Why EVERYONE JUST KNOWS the DoD wastes money on EVERYTHING they buy."
I consider this widespread and erroneous sentiment one of the greatest disinformation campaign successes of the so-called 'reformers' in the 80's.

That and "You have to fly low and slow to do CAS". :wink:

I'm sure you're well aware that development costs and administrative overhead result in these "$800 toilet seat" type situations. If they ordered 100 toilet seats instead of 10, the cost would be significantly less per unit, and probably close to the same overall cost.

Interestingly, the F-35B isn't likely to be cleared to fire its weapons in hover or STOVL slow flight such as for CAS missions. The F-35B could use the EOTS to designate a target for a UCAV to engage.

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2013, 00:20
by count_to_10
There WAS the $800 "Toilet Seat"

I can easily imagine the total cost of designing and custom building twenty toilet seats to specifically fit into space available in the B-2 adding up up to more than $16,000, particularly if it has to be done by people with secret clearances.
We could be talking as little as two months of man hours.

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2013, 02:43
by smsgtmac
Full quote should read:
There WAS the $800 "Toilet Seat" that wasn't

It's important, because it wasn't a 'seat' at all. It was the unit cost for a crashworthy toilet seat BASE made out of composites for the P-3 with a very small production run.
I was working with composites at that time in our unit making fuselages and access covers for XBQM-106A RPVs. $800 was a freakin' bargain. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2013, 07:49
by Corsair1963
Like everything in the Media. It's not what they tell you but what they "DON'T"!

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2013, 18:52
by XanderCrews
smsgtmac wrote:As an aside, I've scoured sources for years and NEVER found an authoritative reference that accurately cites wherever the "$800 screwdriver" episode occurred. Same for "$600" screwdrivers, or any other $ cost except a ~$250 screwdriver --and that wasn't even the real cost without overhead (equal or unequal/proportional) allocation. There WAS the $800 "Toilet Seat" that wasn't(Irate congressmen shaking a retail household toilet seat in Act II of Acquisition Theater non-withstanding), and a $435 Hammer that was also affected by the overhead allocation and was really reasonably priced once you just counted the base price of the tool.
I've come to the conclusion that the terminally offended just like the way 'screwdriver' flowed from the mouth and liked the $800 value attached to the "Toilet Seat" (again: that wasn't) because it was larger. The perverted facts get passed around and twisted a little more until eventually "Why EVERYONE JUST KNOWS the DoD wastes money on EVERYTHING they buy."
I consider this widespread and erroneous sentiment one of the greatest disinformation campaign successes of the so-called 'reformers' in the 80's.


Well said. Its the human need to "short cut" thinking. Rather than delve into the details. and "urban legend" quickly blurs into "science fact" then further blends into "common knowledge"

BTW I look forward to sending someone on a long google voyage the next time its brought up and I ask for a source. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2013, 21:48
by luke_sandoz
Government procurement via drive by sound bite.

Now I understand ObamaCare.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 00:30
by spazsinbad
Here is another SoulKindOfFeeling Story....

Exclusive: South Korea nearing decision to buy F-35 fighters 23 Oct 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa and Joyce Lee, Reuters
"WASHINGTON/SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea is nearing a decision to buy some Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets, but will likely keep its options open for a limited purchase of Boeing Co's F-15, sources familiar with the country's fighter competition said on Wednesday.

South Korean officials could announce their plans as early as November to secure the funding needed to ensure initial deliveries of the F-35 in 2017, according to multiple sources who were not authorized to speak publicly. They cautioned that the decisions were not yet final, and an announcement could still be postponed if the decision-making process hits a snag....

...South Korean officials have said they are examining a mixed procurement approach that could help Seoul maintain sufficient numbers of fighters in its fleet if the F-35 runs into further delays. They are also looking at scaling back the size of the order to 40 or 50 planes....

...South Korean officials are under pressure to commit to at least some F-35 purchases soon, given their own budget deadlines, and the need to start buying certain "long-lead" materials needed for any jets that would be delivered in 2017....

..."South Korea will need to decide on a plan as soon as possible in order to secure (the project's) budget for next year," said one source with direct knowledge of a task force set up last month to review options for the delayed fighter jet buy.

U.S. officials say South Korea must 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.

The Pentagon needs to include any South Korean jets in an advanced procurement contract for "long-lead" items, such as titanium parts, said a source familiar with the F-35 program.

Four additional sources familiar with the South Korean process told Reuters that they expected an announcement by early November. Two other sources expected a decision by year's end.

South Korea's parliament must put in place concrete acquisition plans by December to ensure funding for an initial batch of jets, which would have to be ordered in 2014....

...One of the sources said Seoul was expected to commit to buying F-35s without specifying an exact number, leaving open the possibility of a mixed fleet...."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 6263.story

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 02:09
by lookieloo
Well, the SE still doesn't make sense, but I'd understand if they opted for a Korean SA variant (along with some upgrades) until the F-35 matures just a bit more.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 04:33
by spazsinbad
Korea aviation plan ‘a mess’ 24 Oct 2013 Bill Sweetman *The author is senior international defense editor of Aviation Week.
"Fighter procurements are ponderous, complicated and subject to political interference.

Whatever you think of the outcome of South Korea’s F-X III fighter selection - now leaning toward the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - you cannot deny that it is a mess. The government first created a new agency to manage its defense procurements, set clear selection criteria for 60 new fighters and told the Defense Acquisition Program Administration to git’er done. DAPA picked the F-15SE, a decision that the government speedily set aside.

In accordance with a common definition of insanity, the luckless agency must now go through the same process in hopes of a different outcome. DAPA has caught one break: Eurofighter will be back for round two, so DAPA will not be tied across a sole-source barrel after throwing out binding offers presented in 2013.

Fighter procurements are ponderous, complicated and subject to political interference. The last-named attribute is a feature, not a bug: The price tag gets the Treasury involved, other military services have to vote, and the relationship between the supplier and its own national government will last longer than most marriages.

That said, Korea’s decision stands out because the government had tried to do better. After Dassault noisily bailed out of F-X1 in 2002, alleging that the fix had been in for a U.S. win from the outset, Korea tried to clean up its act by forming DAPA.

Whether or not it was based on a study of Sweden’s FMV, the Korean agency emerged with similar key features: civilian, not subordinate to the services, responsible to the whole of government, and including in its brief, domestic research and development. This would all have been fine had the government not responded to DAPA’s first controversial decision by folding like a cheap suit.

Overt pressure on the government came from 15 former air staff chiefs, who signed an emotional screed that not too subtly evoked a possible threat from F-35-armed Japan. There are a few problems with this sort of appeal.

Former generals have no more access to classified F-35 or threat data than the rest of us (or at least they should not). The Japanese threat might play to the man in the Seoul karaoke bar, but one does not need tinfoil headgear to suspect that. In the event of such a conflict, both sides’ F-35s would succumb to software maladies and stop working rather quickly. And while the generals may all be motivated by pure patriotism, we know that if paying retired officers to influence decisions were illegal, the U.S. defense industry would have to move its business development activities to federal correctional facilities.

There may not have been any U.S. government pressure involved. And Barney might be a real dinosaur. Korea’s 60 near-term orders (the aircraft are needed to replace aging F-4s) are important for the F-35. As recent briefings have shown, the program needs 300 non-U.S. orders in the next 4-5 years to prime the production line and support an orderly ramp-up.

Failure to secure those orders may not kill the program, but they will make it harder to gain the sunlit uplands of building 150-plus per year and un-F-22-like costs. The Netherlands cutting its buy to 37 from 85, and the U.K. punting two-thirds of its nominally planned offtake into the long grass of the later 2020s, are not promising signs that the program’s founding partners are good for those early orders.

It would be understandable if Korea underestimated the importance of an F-35 order to Washington and assumed that an F-15 buy would be of equal validity. When F-X III was in its formative years in 2009, the Pentagon’s high sheriffs believed the F-35 program was blasting ahead toward initial operational capability this year. The Asian market was a sideshow, another dish to be gobbled up in due course.

Korea is in no position to ignore U.S. government warnings about the two nations’ strategic relationship. The next year or so will see how and whether Korea manages to reach a decision that meets the needs of its armed forces, its Treasury and its major ally, while restoring international confidence in the integrity of its procurement process.

Korea’s about-face is a tactical win for the F-35. However, the aircraft has yet to win an open, rules-based competition where all sides were expected to bid a fixed price. Most of its committed buyers, including the U.S. services, signed on when the aircraft was promised to be much earlier and cheaper than it is today. And given the repeated claims of advocates that the price of the F-35A is headed down into F-16 country, the fact that it was beaten on price by not only the massive twin-engine F-15 Eagle but also the Eurofighter Typhoon - from the people who make Aston Martins, Porsches and Lamborghinis - has to raise some eyebrows.

We’ll see what happens in the next open, rules-based, fixed-price, professionally executed competition. What? I’m not saying definitively that Barney can’t be some subspecies of theropoda."

http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/new ... id=2979318

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 04:50
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Korea aviation plan ‘a mess’ 24 Oct 2013 Bill Sweetman
IT'S BEAUTIFUL!!!!!
Image

Really, that was truly perfect. I was starting to wonder where he'd went after embarrassing himself over a non-existent entry by Gripen into the T-X contest. Guess he had to find somewhere else to vent.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 05:21
by spazsinbad
So that is a tinfoil hat. I prefer the crinkled aloominum foil variety. :D (The all illuminum death tube)

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 13:04
by bigjku
I am honestly surprised the aviation week continues to let him write for them.

I find the whole line of logic with DAPA to be funny. Korea set something up, tried it for a major program and then decided that it really was not working as they intended so they elected to modify how they do things. In a lot of places things like that are called progress. The conversation they are having is the same on a business making a large capital expenditure might have regarding phone systems or computer servers or robotic assembly machines. Two options might meet exactly what they set out to do. But do you still buy the 10-20% less expensive one (assuming the difference here is even that) if the more expensive option can do a much better job for much longer? A knee jerk decision to buy the cheapest thing that will meet your needs is silly. You may weigh both alternatives and still decide to go cheap. That is fine. But a proper decision weighs all the factors and decides what is best long-term. Particularly for something that will be a 30-50 year asset.

And can we also stop this whole Netherlands is cutting its orders nonsense? That 80 number has been out of date for a very long time and the fact of the matter is they were going to end up right around 40ish fighters whatever they bought unless it was legacy Gripen's. They buy NG's or Eurofighters and they probably have the same or very similar numbers of aircraft bought. This is a nation that once had 445 very modern tanks in its ranks and now operates zero. They are simply trying to maintain the ability to regenerate an air force if they have to later and nothing more.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 16:00
by SpudmanWP
When you tun out of facts....
.
.
.
Just make $hit up :)

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 21:02
by aaam
Whatever you may think of Bill, in this case his analysis of Korea's process is pretty much spot on. Korea's real desire was to buy the F-35. Rather than go out and just do it, they set up a sham "competition" to determine the selection. When following their own rules didn't come out the way they expected, they simply blew the whole thing off and went with what they wanted to do to begin with. Why bother putting the companies through all this?

And he's also correct that the US Gov't has a vested interest in F-35 export sales, because those sales are part of what is going to determine the price of F-35s. F-15 sales won't help that. So it seems logical that the US would be interested in putting some pressure out there for other countries to make the "right" choice, our chosen export instrument.

Notice I'm not getting into the capabilites of the various aspirants.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 22:19
by lookieloo
aaam wrote:And he's also correct that the US Gov't has a vested interest in F-35 export sales, because those sales are part of what is going to determine the price of F-35s.
Which begs the question: Why was the program structured to be so dependent on early, high-volume export in the first place? Seriously, this is one part of the project that has always baffled me.

In any case, it probably doesn't matter. Bill wasn't very specific about those 300 orders. Did he mean 300 more? Excluding Canada/Denmark/Singapore/Korea, and including reductions by others, I still came up with a likely foreign-order book of 544.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2013, 23:15
by aaam
lookieloo wrote:
aaam wrote:And he's also correct that the US Gov't has a vested interest in F-35 export sales, because those sales are part of what is going to determine the price of F-35s.
Which begs the question: Why was the program structured to be so dependent on early, high-volume export in the first place? Seriously, this is one part of the project that has always baffled me.

In any case, it probably doesn't matter. Bill wasn't very specific about those 300 orders. Did he mean 300 more? Excluding Canada/Denmark/Singapore/Korea, and including reductions by others, I still came up with a likely foreign-order book of 544.


Answer to question 1:

So that the numbers wold come out the way they wanted.

Answer to question 2:

The orders have to actually take place, not just estimated. Look how much the UK order has gone down. Also very significantly, it's when those orders and deliveries take place. Planes that don't get built until 2025 do not help the ramp-up and keep the production run high.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2013, 02:14
by lookieloo
aaam wrote:The orders have to actually take place, not just estimated. Look how much the UK order has gone down. Also very significantly, it's when those orders and deliveries take place. Planes that don't get built until 2025 do not help the ramp-up and keep the production run high.
Which largely goes along with what I've been saying... that delayed orders hurt the program more than cut orders (which may or may-not stay cut). In any case, my estimate is very far from a best-case scenario; so even if Sweetman's "recent briefing" is right on the money, I'm not too worried.

As for the matter at hand, the competition was indeed a sham, just not for the reason Sweetman seems to think. If it was supposed to be a fig-leaf for predetermined selection of the JSF, why then was it set up with rules making it impossible for the F-35 to win? The short of it is that the "sham" wasn't for the Korean people's benefit... it was for the DoD's, a half-baked plan to haggle the F-35's price that misunderstood how FMS actually works.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2013, 02:58
by spazsinbad
Whatever the reasons to claim that the Koreans do not understand FMS is outrageous. However I do not claim to know the reason for the schmozzle of the South Korean competition except hope they get it 'right' according to their own satisfaction. I like the way Australia does things. :D

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2013, 03:12
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Whatever the reasons to claim that the Koreans do not understand FMS is outrageous.
When all other explanations are exhausted...
Either they didn't understand, or they assumed our rules were more pliable than theirs (which would also indicate misunderstanding).

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2013, 03:19
by spazsinbad
The whole process is obscure and fair enough. Just do not assume too much about 'misunderstandings'.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2013, 05:33
by Corsair1963
aaam wrote:Whatever you may think of Bill, in this case his analysis of Korea's process is pretty much spot on. Korea's real desire was to buy the F-35. Rather than go out and just do it, they set up a sham "competition" to determine the selection. When following their own rules didn't come out the way they expected, they simply blew the whole thing off and went with what they wanted to do to begin with. Why bother putting the companies through all this?

And he's also correct that the US Gov't has a vested interest in F-35 export sales, because those sales are part of what is going to determine the price of F-35s. F-15 sales won't help that. So it seems logical that the US would be interested in putting some pressure out there for other countries to make the "right" choice, our chosen export instrument.

Notice I'm not getting into the capabilites of the various aspirants.


You maybe right yet look at Canada. It has selected the F-35 and has received considerable "Heat" for not looking at other options. Even when it's clear that the F-35 is the best option for Canada on a number of levels. That of course comes both Political and Military Leadership with in Canada.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2013, 17:49
by XanderCrews
The Japanese threat might play to the man in the Seoul karaoke bar, but one does not need tinfoil headgear to suspect that. In the event of such a conflict, both sides’ F-35s would succumb to software maladies and stop working rather quickly.


You don't have to be crazy to think --insert something crazy--

Quite the assertion there. Bill just operating on rumor and wild guesses at this point? Might as well be written by Slowman.

Korea’s about-face is a tactical win for the F-35. However, the aircraft has yet to win an open, rules-based competition where all sides were expected to bid a fixed price.


and yet it keeps winning anyway. Its enough to drive an aviation writer into tinfoil hat conspiracy.

It will be a funny footnote one day, that the F-35 never "won" a competition but was built in the thousands. something aviation history nerds will have a chuckle and snort over.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2013, 20:44
by neurotech
Theres 3 or 4 basic options.
1) Buy the F-35 at a realistic price either ramp-up or FRP
2) Buy a lesser spec fighter
3) Buy/develop a smaller and more economical 5th gen LWF
4) Buy a lesser spec fighter that is more expensive than a F-35
Am I missing something here?

I can well remember the RAAF laughing at the idea of buying Super Hornets, but 6 years later... they bought them.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2013, 20:58
by XanderCrews
neurotech wrote:Theres 3 or 4 basic options.
1) Buy the F-35 at a realistic price either ramp-up or FRP
2) Buy a lesser spec fighter
3) Buy/develop a smaller and more economical 5th gen LWF
4) Buy a lesser spec fighter that is more expensive than a F-35
Am I missing something here?

I can well remember the RAAF laughing at the idea of buying Super Hornets, but 6 years later... they bought them.


while we are having a laugh about that, Sweetman on other forums was more than happy to say Korea got it right and good show when the F-15SE won, now its a "mess. " The reality is it was always a mess, he just didn't mind when the F-35 was knocked out. Conversely many people for a long time were saying this was mess, most obviously after the 1st round of bidding had no one coming in under price. Thats when this circus really blew open, and it only got more and more funny. For some reason Bill was the last to get the memo on the whole fiasco.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2013, 23:07
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:
neurotech wrote:Theres 3 or 4 basic options.
1) Buy the F-35 at a realistic price either ramp-up or FRP
2) Buy a lesser spec fighter
3) Buy/develop a smaller and more economical 5th gen LWF
4) Buy a lesser spec fighter that is more expensive than a F-35
Am I missing something here?

I can well remember the RAAF laughing at the idea of buying Super Hornets, but 6 years later... they bought them.
while we are having a laugh about that, Sweetman on other forums was more than happy to say Korea got it right and good show when the F-15SE won, now its a "mess. " The reality is it was always a mess, he just didn't mind when the F-35 was knocked out. Conversely many people for a long time were saying this was mess, most obviously after the 1st round of bidding had no one coming in under price. Thats when this circus really blew open, and it only got more and more funny. For some reason Bill was the last to get the memo on the whole fiasco.
To toot my own horn a bit, I started predicting this end-fiasco back in June, when it became clear that the F-35 wasn't going to qualify under DAPA's rules despite being what the ROKAF really wanted. Also, it's worth remembering the the F-35 still hasn't won, and modification of DAPA's price demands could help the other competitors as well (SE might regrow those canted v-stabs, and Typhoon could sprout some CFTs).

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 00:35
by geogen
neurotech wrote:Theres 3 or 4 basic options.
1) Buy the F-35 at a realistic price either ramp-up or FRP
2) Buy a lesser spec fighter
3) Buy/develop a smaller and more economical 5th gen LWF
4) Buy a lesser spec fighter that is more expensive than a F-35
Am I missing something here?

I can well remember the RAAF laughing at the idea of buying Super Hornets, but 6 years later... they bought them.


Or, 5) Buy a combination of F-15K++ (or Typhoon) and block III F-35A (Lease?), plus/or stealthy UCAV such as the Avenger(?), plus additional next-gen stand-off munitions to augment deterrence.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 01:57
by aaam
neurotech wrote:Theres 3 or 4 basic options.
1) Buy the F-35 at a realistic price either ramp-up or FRP
2) Buy a lesser spec fighter
3) Buy/develop a smaller and more economical 5th gen LWF
4) Buy a lesser spec fighter that is more expensive than a F-35
Am I missing something here?

I can well remember the RAAF laughing at the idea of buying Super Hornets, but 6 years later... they bought them.


They were laughing because at the time they thought the F-35 would be delivered more or less on time. If you're really intersted in the F-35, you wouldn't look twice at the SH.

When it became apparnet that it would miss the date by a lot and the F-111 was going away, they grabbed the SH as a gap filler, on the thought that it would require the minimum disruption given they were already flying the Bug, until the plane they really wanted was ready.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 02:18
by weasel1962
Which is exactly why the F-15SE was chosen. The level of maturity in the F-15 pharogramme, add delivery timelines etc at that cost level justifies its selection. Principally what Korea HQ is thinking is that why be limited by the price when they have $$$ to spend. The failure of DAPA was that this fundamental point was not clearly discussed with the stakeholders and accepted before selection resulting in wasting everyone's time including the ROK who are now faced with an implementation delay.

Boeing is still in this game hoping for a split buy but in reality more for marketing purposes to maintain an excellent relationship with the Korean government (they do buy Boeing airliners, transport a/c and helos). A split buy has a 0.1% chance of success.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 02:46
by lookieloo
weasel1962 wrote:Which is exactly why the F-15SE was chosen. The level of maturity in the F-15 pharogramme, add delivery timelines etc at that cost level justifies its selection.
That logic only seems to work if applied to the K model (or maybe the SA)... not so much for the SE (which would require more development than the F-35 at this point methinks).

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 02:54
by Corsair1963
Really, I see no reason for a mix order of F-35's and F-15SE's. As South Korea could upgrade its current fleet to SE Standards until the arrival of the much more capable Lightning's/ IMO

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 03:07
by aaam
Corsair1963 wrote:Really, I see no reason for a mix order of F-35's and F-15SE's. As South Korea could upgrade its current fleet to SE Standards until the arrival of the much more capable Lightning's/ IMO


I don't think the Ks don't have FBW, and I would imagine it would be prohibitvely expensive to try and put all that's in the SE into the K. You also still run into the problem tha going that roite would not increase the total number of assets at Korea's disposal, which is also one of the objectives for Phase III.

Even if it were possible, It would also reduce the number of aircraft available during the conversion process. to darw a a parallell here in the US, one of the reasons the Marines changed their plans and went to mostly new production for the UH-1Y is that they coudn't afford to have that many UH-1s out of service while they were being rebuilt from Ns into Ys.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 03:17
by Corsair1963
aaam wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Really, I see no reason for a mix order of F-35's and F-15SE's. As South Korea could upgrade its current fleet to SE Standards until the arrival of the much more capable Lightning's/ IMO


I don't think the Ks don't have FBW, and I would imagine it would be prohibitvely expensive to try and put all that's in the SE into the K. You also still run into the problem tha going that roite would not increase the total number of assets at Korea's disposal, which is also one of the objectives for Phase III.

Even if it were possible, It would also reduce the number of aircraft available during the conversion process. to darw a a parallell here in the US, one of the reasons the Marines changed their plans and went to mostly new production for the UH-1Y is that they coudn't afford to have that many UH-1s out of service while they were being rebuilt from Ns into Ys.


Clearly, many of the other features could be incorporated. (i.e. Stealth) :idea:

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 03:46
by neurotech
aaam wrote:
neurotech wrote:Theres 3 or 4 basic options.
1) Buy the F-35 at a realistic price either ramp-up or FRP
2) Buy a lesser spec fighter
3) Buy/develop a smaller and more economical 5th gen LWF
4) Buy a lesser spec fighter that is more expensive than a F-35
Am I missing something here?

I can well remember the RAAF laughing at the idea of buying Super Hornets, but 6 years later... they bought them.


They were laughing because at the time they thought the F-35 would be delivered more or less on time. If you're really intersted in the F-35, you wouldn't look twice at the SH.

When it became apparnet that it would miss the date by a lot and the F-111 was going away, they grabbed the SH as a gap filler, on the thought that it would require the minimum disruption given they were already flying the Bug, until the plane they really wanted was ready.

The key selling point (of varying practicality) was conversion to EA-18G, knowing that it'll be a long time before the F-35 gets escort jamming capability. A couple of the early production "test" F/A-18Fs for the Navy had most of the wiring for the EA-18 and were used to support the Growler test program. Its just to use those jets as a mission ready EA platform would require complete disassembly and not save much overall costs. Also, These test jets were never intended to be mission readym but the 12 RAAF F/A-18Fs are fully combat ready so dissassembling them is not such a good idea. The RAAF ordered additional EA-18s instead.

@geogen: I think I covered that in point 4, that a F-15K++ would cost more than a FRP F-35, due to the low numbers of F-15s being made.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 04:02
by spazsinbad
'neurotech' you appear to be rewriting history a little on the RAAF Super Hornet 'conversion to Growler' option (last twelve wired in the factory for such a conversion) which was touted at the time as a day or so job to achieve (with wiring in place). Then there was a discussion about 'how many to convert' which was thought to be six initially (of the initial 2 dozen - with only a dozen wired). Then an extra 12 GROWLERS were ordered with the reason being amongst other things that converting the Supers to Growlers was 'more difficult' and this conversion would take those aircraft out of service for an unspecified time. How difficult and how long I do not know - your 'disassembly' seems a bit too much. In any event the reason for the first two dozen Super Hornets for the RAAF was to account for the delay to the F-35 program and the accelerated 'out of service' timeline for the F-111s. These first two dozen Supers were a 'capability gap filler' - the extra dozen Growlers are a capability add on and an acknowledgement they are a good capability for the RAAF to achieve - especially when other improvements are made to the Growler Fleet overall - in future.

This growling capability is new for the RAAF but so are a lot of new networking/jamming capabilities in other new assets airborne today in the RAAF. And I believe anyone / any country has the right to change their minds/ course of action over time - especially when future capabilities are not achieved as planned or circumstances change for all / both. We live in a fast changing world.

The idea that plans cannot change is silly. Of course they can and always will - yet until the plans change that is what the plan is. Plan to change the plan as required is a good plan. :D Plan for everything and something will be appropriate and it will have been planned for - not that anyone outside the 'need to know' needs to know it. So there are public and otherwise 'secret' plans that may never be needed. :roll:

My local area Winmalee in the Lower Blue Mountains west of Sydney has been under fire threat for the last ten days, starting with a severe fire here which destroyed around 200 houses, damaging 100, on the first horrific day last Thursday week. When I saw the fire in the near distance I had a plan, then I had another plan when I saw the strong wind push the fire away from my location down a valley to ravage Yellow Rock. Meanwhile north of me was another fire damaging/ destroying homes in the near distance. I had plans up the wazoo but mostly they centred around what I had to achieve in the circumstances; which thankfully changed quickly from immediate threat to lesser threats over the days (except last Wednesday). Before that I had a general set of plans as required from good advice about the potential fire situation in our general area from time to time.

Thankfully I did not need to act on any of the plans other than the general plan of staying put to defend my house, as best I could, and to take shelter in it if fire overcame the area - hopefully after sheltering one can step outside the burning house into the burnt area as the fire moves on and watch the house burn down. However one is safe and that is all that counts in my plan. :D

There was a state of emergency declared so anyone authorised could order me to evacuate - but that would be a dire situation indeed (known with some time to effect such evacuation beforehand). Plans plans and more plans but enough is enough eh. :roll: BTW the local weather and fire situation has eased enormously due the good work of all types of firefighters, including the airborne water bombers. Looks like the fires will be contained until they are extinguished in the next rain period - whenever that is.

Here is latest news (see 'Linksview Rd entry'):

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?cat_id=684

Note emphasis on planning and having a plan etc.
"...Check and follow your Bush Fire Survival Plan. If you do not have a Bush Fire Survival Plan, know what you will do if the fire threatens your property.

Well prepared and actively defended homes can offer safety during the fire...."

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 13:25
by count_to_10
The idea that plans cannot change is silly. Of course they can and always will - yet until the plans change that is what the plan is. Plan to change the plan as required is a good plan. Very Happy Plan for everything and something will be appropriate and it will have been planned for - not that anyone outside the 'need to know' needs to know it. So there are public and otherwise 'secret' plans that may never be needed. Rolling Eyes

:lmao:
Poetically done. :thumb:

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 15:15
by geogen
aaam wrote:I don't think the Ks don't have FBW, and I would imagine it would be prohibitvely expensive to try and put all that's in the SE into the K. You also still run into the problem tha going that roite would not increase the total number of assets at Korea's disposal, which is also one of the objectives for Phase III.

Even if it were possible, It would also reduce the number of aircraft available during the conversion process...


Well said and noted. Thanks for the explanation and clarification.

Indeed, there was a 'Strategic' reason for F-X III's requirements in the first place and not merely requirement for a dual-phase, incremental process, in the numbers previously acquired. Perhaps if F-X II had included a requirement for a far larger acquisition though, such as 80 F-15K (with the back-half production underway today and continuing for another 2-3 years), then RoK could have had flexibility to incrementally upgrade a portion of it's F-15K fleet to an advanced F-15K++ capabilities spec, accordingly. But RoK didn't and instead required a separate F-X III process.

@ neuro... your point number 4) actually was not sufficient due to the fact that 1), the original F-X III would have required at least some expensive LRIP F-35 jets to be procured as a portion of the total and 2) the eventual cost for an early-FRP F-35A is simply uncertain at this stage given the fact that such eventual cost estimates are contingent on the actual revised annual rates being produced by FY19 and revised Total Production number estimates. Hence, the F-15K++ would still potentially be the more affordable option and the more reliable too. (which could be consideration if RoK does in fact decide on a split-buy of some stealth/non-stealth mix, per revised F-X III spec).

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 19:22
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:'neurotech' you appear to be rewriting history a little on the RAAF Super Hornet 'conversion to Growler' option (last twelve wired in the factory for such a conversion) which was touted at the time as a day or so job to achieve (with wiring in place). Then there was a discussion about 'how many to convert' which was thought to be six initially (of the initial 2 dozen - with only a dozen wired). Then an extra 12 GROWLERS were ordered with the reason being amongst other things that converting the Supers to Growlers was 'more difficult' and this conversion would take those aircraft out of service for an unspecified time. How difficult and how long I do not know - your 'disassembly' seems a bit too much. In any event the reason for the first two dozen Super Hornets for the RAAF was to account for the delay to the F-35 program and the accelerated 'out of service' timeline for the F-111s. These first two dozen Supers were a 'capability gap filler' - the extra dozen Growlers are a capability add on and an acknowledgement they are a good capability for the RAAF to achieve - especially when other improvements are made to the Growler Fleet overall - in future.

The order for the Super Hornets was as a gap-filler, I know that. The possible conversion to Growler made it easier to justify the "stop gap" purchase.

The Growler will add to the capability of the RAAF, no argument there. The newer F/A-18Fs and the EA-18Gs have extensive networking capability that isn't found on earlier jets. The Navy will probably upgrade the EA-18Gs to work better with the MADL on the F-35s. They can also control drones from the back seat of a F/A-18F.

For the Growler upgrade, there are various avionics modules that have to be added or swapped out. Almost every panel has to be removed from the main fuselage, and depending on which Lot the cooling has to be upgraded. The gun is also removed. All this is not a one day, or even 7 day task. I think FlightGlobal published a fairly accurate diagram of the EA-18G, and Defense Industry Daily showed some of the Growler specific items. http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/i ... ems_lg.jpg

I hope you stay safe from the fires, its a major threat to people and property.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 19:44
by spazsinbad
This slant is not correct IMHO - I do not know why you think this is so. "The possible conversion to Growler made it easier to justify the "stop gap" purchase...." The Super Hornets were as has been described quite a few times now by various news outlets and government spokespeople, certainly the possible conversion of some to Growler status was an additional benefit. I'll look for a reference purporting to show the conversion of Super Hornets wired for Growler status to Growlers was said to be an easy quick task.

The fire threat has long past in this local area now. Although the summer fire season generally may be a bad one - depending on many factors. Some rain will take care of a lot of that risk - something in short supply recently.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 20:03
by spazsinbad
Overall these articles over a long period of time show how plans were made - then changed - as the situation required - with as many options as possible. First Oz went for the cheap option wired/fitted but not with the bits and then went the whole hog when it was realised how useful the Growler would be for the RAAF.

This first article is a good summary of the situation - note how the RAAF have moved training back to the USofA to enable more Supers to be online. Similarly buying a dozen Growlers extra enables the 2 dozen Supers to be operational (not in a 'Growler refit' for six of them): [refit time quote to follow]

RAAF chief says Growler conversion to start off with only 6 airframes 25 Sep 2012 Julian Kerr
"“Only six of the 12 Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) F/A-18F Super Hornet strike fighters destined for the EA-18G Growler electronic attack role will be converted to the new configuration initially, Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown told IHS Jane's on 20 September. AM Brown said conversion of the first 6 Super Hornets would begin around 2015, with initial operating capability (IOC) anticipated around 2018. He added that conversion of the remaining 6 would take place in the early 2020s.

Twelve Super Hornets were prewired on the Boeing production line at a cost of AUD35 million (USD36 million) to facilitate a possible retrofit to the electric attack configuration. To maintain the bridging air combat capability provided by the F/A-18Fs between the retirement of the RAAF's F-111 strike fighters in 2010 and IOC of the first of up to 100 F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) in late 2020, Super Hornet training would revert back to the United States.

"At the moment we've got about six of our 24 Super Hornets dedicated to training, and we're going to move that training back to the US to maintain our operational capabilities." AM Brown said.”

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/def ... 1065971743
&
Consolidated Air Combat Capability 31 Oct 2007 DMO - Defence Material Organization
“...Regarding claims the Super Hornet is not sufficiently stealthy:
The Super Hornet is a low-observable (LO) aircraft, orders of magnitude more 'stealthy' than F-111 or Su-30s. The F-35 JSF is a Very Low Observable (VLO) aircraft and true 5th generation....

...The Super Hornet is a true multi-role aircraft that spans the air combat spectrum, including maritime strike, so vital for Australia. The Block II airframe is redesigned for signature reduction and the aircraft is built around the most advanced radar in any nonfifth generation aircraft in the world.

Modern lethal weapons render any aircraft performance measure irrelevant if it does not enable first shot. First shot is achieved long range through:

• modern networking;
• survivability – (through signature reduction and integrated electronic
countermeasures that deny opponents the ability to shoot);
• advanced radars to cue weapons early, and
• lethal missiles – (with long range and protection against countermeasures).

In its air superiority roles, the F/A-18F possesses all these attributes & will test any modern air defence system. Air combat capability is about far more than the aircraft specifications. Reliable, sustainable logistics support, the best training and a full air combat system of command and control is required to match modern threats. No other aircraft can meet this requirement in the bridging timeframe better than F/A-18F Super Hornet....”
&
"...Australia aims to retire the F-111 at a time of our choosing, noting the F-111 was planned
to retire well before Super Hornet was considered as a bridging capability...."

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/CACC.pdf (54Kb)
&
$200m refit to give fighter jets growl 22 Feb 2012 Ian McPhedran
"...Australia purchased 12 Rhino fighters wired for the Growler upgrade during the production process at a cost of $35 million. Retro fitting has never been attempted before and will cost between $200 million and $300 million. News Limited understands that the first aircraft will be converted at the Boeing factory in St Louis and the remainder at Amberley RAAF base near Brisbane...."

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 6277576058
&
‘Jamming’ price hits turbulence 30 Mar 2012 David Ellery
"...If Defence does not sign off on the full upgrade - which involves sending the 12 [Super Hornets already wired for 'growling'] planes back to the Boeing production line in the United States...."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nationa ... 1w1h1.html
&
A good overview of how a 'cheap' Growler conversion was envisaged (without buying all the pods and shite - just borrowing them from the USN) to then go to buying the whole growling kit and caboodle. :D Not worth excerpting the whole article so go read it.

Cost of ‘Growler’ jets blows out to $1.7b 07 Aug 2012 David Ellery
"The cost to the taxpayer of converting 12 RAAF Super Hornets into $250 million electronic warfare warriors, or “Growlers”, has increased almost six fold from $300 million to $1.7 billion...."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nationa ... =text-only
&
Australian Growler Crews Have A Heavy Workload Ahead 07 Sep 2012 Richard Dudley
"...The Growler shares 90 percent commonality with the Super Hornet and has a similar flight performance giving it the ability to deliver escort jamming along with more traditional standoff jamming. Because of its flight characteristics, the Growler is expected to accompany F/A-18s throughout the duration of assigned attack missions.

The Super Hornet and the Growler have a shared airframe; both carry the Raytheon AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar and the AN/AYK-22 stores management system. t of the Growler’s airborne electronic attack components are housed in the space reserved for the 20 millimeter gun mounted in the Super Hornets and on the wingtip rails.

The wingtip rails are designed to carry AN/ALQ-218 wideband receivers. The nine external hardpoints can accommodate additional weapons or jamming pods to include as many as five ALQ-99 high and low-band tactical jamming pods. A typical combat load would also include two AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile) or AGM-88 HARM (High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile) missiles. The Growler is also equipped with the INCAS Interference Cancellation system that makes it possible for Growler rews to retain voice communication while actively jamming enemy communications, a capability not available on the EA-6B Prowlers....

...Good or bad, the EA-18G is the western world’s only AEA aircraft of the future as no alternative platform exists. For Australia, adding the Growlers to the RAAF’s fleet of Super Hornets is viewed as a necessary step in strengthening the nation’s airborne defense capability...."

http://defense-update.com/20120907_ausi_growlers.html

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/i ... ems_lg.jpg [mentioned above]
&
RAAF Classifies Growlers As Support Aircraft 18 March 2013 By Bradley Perrett
"...the RAAF’s argument that EA-18Gs are support, not combat, aircraft. “While they do attack [electronically], that is a fraction of their role and they cannot do all of the roles of a strike fighter,” says the senior officer. The Growlers will spend much of their time collecting electronic intelligence, not attacking, the officer says. Using them for conventional attacks would be beyond the training of their crews, specialists in the techniques of electronic warfare.

If Growlers are not combat aircraft, then the air force can argue that, despite their induction, it still needs 100 fighters—a mix of Super Hornets and Lightnings, at least at first. The government has made no comment on that possibility....

...Regardless of the Super Hornet force, Growler training will be done separately, in the U.S. If 24 aircraft [12 prewired Supers and an extra 12 'actual Growlers'] are wired for Growler configuration, then rotation in and out of storage would offer a longer service life.

Australia will not use its Growlers in exactly the same way as the U.S. Navy does, says the senior [RAAF] officer, declining to give details except to note that the RAAF will not fly the same types available to U.S. electronic attack units...."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article/Pri ... tView=true
&
ELECTRONIC WARFARE IN OFFENSIVE AIR OPERATIONS [Oz] THE SIR RICHARD WILLIAMS FOUNDATION INC - Jan 2012
"...The Growler in the USN is not utilised as an attack fighter. While capable of utilizing guided weapons the USN has separated the two roles apparently because Growler crews are stretched maintaining skills in their primary EW role.

Without fighter type EW systems in the Air Order of Battle the ADF could suffer significant losses during any attempt to operate in contested airspace. If required to operate in contested airspace the ADF would have to rely on allied support."

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/si ... 0JAN12.pdf (127Kb)

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2013, 21:02
by spazsinbad
Looks like my memory about the quote to change a 'pre-wired' Super Hornet to a Growler in a day or two is not easy to find. I will continue to look - however that is my recollection of the situation when the topic of 'pre-wiring' in the factory as the last dozen Supers were manufactured for Oz was being discussed. I cannot see how 'pre-wiring' will make the subsequent fitting of Growler gear to a 'pre-wired' Super Hornet such a big deal as thought by 'neurotech'.

Good overview in this online PDF (8.1Mb) Avionics-Magazine-September-2010.

Jammer Next Sep 2010 Bill Carey
Four industry teams vie to produce a more capable, next generation tactical jammer...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37007002/Avio ... ember-2010
_______________________

For some context about Super Hornets this is a classic example of a 'dummy spit' in Oz lingo.... :twisted:

Australia’s multi-billion dollar defence dilemma [Oz] ABC TV 18 Feb 2008
MARK BANNERMAN (ABC TV interviewer): ...Last year, the then Defence Minister Brendan Nelson made a decision to purchase 24 Super Hornet jet fighters. It left defence experts stunned. Last year, you effectively said this plane was a dog. Have you changed your view in any way about that?

[AVM] PETER CRISS [RAAF Rtd]: I said it was a super dog and it's a super dog squared as far as I'm concerned. As we found out more and more about it, it's abysmal in every area that is so critical to buying a fighter strike type aircraft. It cannot perform.

MARK BANNERMAN: The former chief of Australia's operational Air Force isn't just worried about the choice of the Super Hornet that he believes is slower and more vulnerable than the plane it replaces, what really concerns Peter Criss most is that no one inside the Defence Force or the department was prepared to stand up and argue against the decision.

PETER CRISS: I know there's a bunch of them that know the Super Hornet is a dog, alright. They've told me, they've told acquaintances of mine, friends of mine that they are terribly concerned about it. But it was the decision taken by the Minister at very short notice for whatever reasons and foisted on them....”

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2165833.htm

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2013, 01:14
by Corsair1963
If, the report just posted today that South Korea is to get Aircraft Carriers. That means a F-35B buy is extremely likely. Which, should in turn make a F-35A almost a given..........

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2013, 02:50
by XanderCrews
Corsair1963 wrote:If, the report just posted today that South Korea is to get Aircraft Carriers. That means a F-35B buy is extremely likely. Which, should in turn make a F-35A almost a given..........


Its funny how people bash the USMC into the ground and wholly "blame" them for the F-35B, but the F-35B is going to be an export success, and as you say may in turn drive sales for the A!

As for the Korean split buy (if they go that route) I would think additional F-15Ks would be tempting, rather than the SE which would add logistics and be a very small fleet in the end. how many would Korea realistically get? 30 at the most?

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2013, 03:02
by neurotech
There are not many STOVL fighters to choose from.

I do think a split buy is more likely, and that a modestly upgraded F-15K will be purchased, not the whole SE package.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2013, 03:25
by Corsair1963
neurotech wrote:There are not many STOVL fighters to choose from.

I do think a split buy is more likely, and that a modestly upgraded F-15K will be purchased, not the whole SE package.


The current fleet of F-15K will be more than capable to counter North Korea and/or China. Plus, the former could upgrade them with the Stealth Capabilities of the F-15SE. Which, would be a good short term option in my opinion.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2013, 03:33
by count_to_10
Corsair1963 wrote:
neurotech wrote:There are not many STOVL fighters to choose from.

I do think a split buy is more likely, and that a modestly upgraded F-15K will be purchased, not the whole SE package.


The current fleet of F-15K will be more than capable to counter North Korea and/or China. Plus, the former could upgrade them with the Stealth Capabilities of the F-15SE. Which, would be a good short term option in my opinion.

Current China and the foreseeable future of NK, but if China actually pulls off LO fighters, those F-15s will end up getting "clubbed like baby seals".

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2013, 03:45
by Corsair1963
count_to_10 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
neurotech wrote:There are not many STOVL fighters to choose from.

I do think a split buy is more likely, and that a modestly upgraded F-15K will be purchased, not the whole SE package.


The current fleet of F-15K will be more than capable to counter North Korea and/or China. Plus, the former could upgrade them with the Stealth Capabilities of the F-15SE. Which, would be a good short term option in my opinion.

Current China and the foreseeable future of NK, but if China actually pulls off LO fighters, those F-15s will end up getting "clubbed like baby seals".



Which, is why South Korea tossed out the F-15SE and restarted the Fighter Bid with the F-35 being ever more the likely winner. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2013, 04:09
by XanderCrews
Corsair1963 wrote:. Plus, the former could upgrade them with the Stealth Capabilities of the F-15SE.


Other than the weapons pod CFTs I don't see how they could, :?:

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2013, 04:45
by Corsair1963
XanderCrews wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:. Plus, the former could upgrade them with the Stealth Capabilities of the F-15SE.


Other than the weapons pod CFTs I don't see how they could, :?:



Well, the Weapon Pods are what lowers the RCS of the F-15 vs carrying External Stores. This in itself would be an improvement in certain high rics missions. Plus, the cost is likely very reasonable.

Regardless, its just a stop gap until the arrival of the F-35A in either case.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2013, 08:34
by weasel1962
Could FX-III be F-35A vs F-35B? The B is the most developed version to date and the 1st to get IOC-ed. From a timeline perspective, could it work in B's favor?

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2013, 09:18
by lookieloo
weasel1962 wrote:Could FX-III be F-35A vs F-35B? The B is the most developed version to date and the 1st to get IOC-ed. From a timeline perspective, could it work in B's favor?
The Bee is a very long way off for them (assuming they actually follow through on their carrier roadmap). In the meantime, F-35A is cheaper and more-capable.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 00:59
by Corsair1963
lookieloo wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Could FX-III be F-35A vs F-35B? The B is the most developed version to date and the 1st to get IOC-ed. From a timeline perspective, could it work in B's favor?
The Bee is a very long way off for them (assuming they actually follow through on their carrier roadmap). In the meantime, F-35A is cheaper and more-capable.


How do you figure the B Model is a very long way off??? As the article stated the current LHD's would be adapted with a Ski Jump to operate STOVL Aircraft. Which, would be followed by a Cavour Type Carrier in another decade.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 02:14
by lookieloo
Corsair1963 wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Could FX-III be F-35A vs F-35B? The B is the most developed version to date and the 1st to get IOC-ed. From a timeline perspective, could it work in B's favor?
The Bee is a very long way off for them (assuming they actually follow through on their carrier roadmap). In the meantime, F-35A is cheaper and more-capable.
How do you figure the B Model is a very long way off??? As the article stated the current LHD's would be adapted with a Ski Jump to operate STOVL Aircraft. Which, would be followed by a Cavour Type Carrier in another decade.
Read a bit more carefully. I believe it's strongly implied that used Harriers will go on the modified LHD. In the 2nd stage, they plan to procure a larger amphib which I'm guessing will at least have Bee capability. Only when they build the two proper carriers will I be confidant of an F-35B order.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 03:00
by Corsair1963
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Could FX-III be F-35A vs F-35B? The B is the most developed version to date and the 1st to get IOC-ed. From a timeline perspective, could it work in B's favor?
The Bee is a very long way off for them (assuming they actually follow through on their carrier roadmap). In the meantime, F-35A is cheaper and more-capable.
How do you figure the B Model is a very long way off??? As the article stated the current LHD's would be adapted with a Ski Jump to operate STOVL Aircraft. Which, would be followed by a Cavour Type Carrier in another decade.
Read a bit more carefully. I believe it's strongly implied that used Harriers will go on the modified LHD. In the 2nd stage, they plan to procure a larger amphib which I'm guessing will at least have Bee capability. Only when they build the two proper carriers will I be confidant of an F-35B order.



It does in fact imply the Harrier II. Yet, that doesn't mean that after evaluating the options it won't select the F-35B. Remember, the Harrier is a difficult aircraft to fly and the attritions rate is high.

Also, additional F-35's even B Models would strengthen South Korean Defense and it would share a great deal with the ROKAF F-35A's.

Then don't forget the F-35B's many advantages. Which, include the ability to be dispersed and operated from the countryside on any stretch of road.


All speculation for sure. Yet, I think the case is very good for the F-35B. (don't think South Korea plans on waiting 20 years for the F-35B)

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 06:03
by weasel1962
The carriers are a long way off but doesn't mean B acquisition have to follow that timeline. If one compares A vs B acquisition...

Japan has to travel a bit further for the As to fight in China/Korea. Korea has a significantly smaller combat radius so the high+short sortie rate for B model works. The 1st strike risk is also mitigated with the B variant. However on the flip side, some elements of the ROK seem dumb enough to risk F-35As ingress into enemy held airspace to perform heavy strikes e.g. anti nukes so the 2k internal load could be a factor. If SDB or 2k external loads were preferred, they'd got a better deal with stand-off SDB/JDAM armed F-15s so prioritising SDB loads could be quite contradictory.

Are there any A & B differences on A2A? Both carry same number of missiles internal, same avionics, similar performance requirements, same weight in air etc.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 06:14
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:The carriers are a long way off but doesn't mean B acquisition have to follow that timeline. If one compares A vs B acquisition...

Japan has to travel a bit further for the As to fight in China/Korea. Korea has a significantly smaller combat radius so the high+short sortie rate for B model works. The 1st strike risk is also mitigated with the B variant. However on the flip side, some elements of the ROK seem dumb enough to risk F-35As ingress into enemy held airspace to perform heavy strikes e.g. anti nukes so the 2k internal load could be a factor. If SDB or 2k external loads were preferred, they'd got a better deal with stand-off SDB/JDAM armed F-15s so prioritising SDB loads could be quite contradictory.

Are there any A & B differences on A2A? Both carry same number of missiles internal, same avionics, similar performance requirements, same weight in air etc.


Well, both have advantages and disadvantages. Yet, the differences are generally small. Either way the best option is to have both! :wink:

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 06:29
by XanderCrews
I would be really surprised to see them actually get Harrier IIs. I suppose nothing is impossible, but man that seems like a long shot.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 06:51
by Corsair1963
XanderCrews wrote:I would be really surprised to see them actually get Harrier IIs. I suppose nothing is impossible, but man that seems like a long shot.



In what context I am sure second hand Harriers would be available???


Regardless, I still think the F-35B would be a far better solution both short-term and long-term. 8)

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 09:28
by lookieloo
Corsair1963 wrote:Regardless, I still think the F-35B would be a far better solution both short-term and long-term. 8)
Not so sure. Does anyone have the dimensions and weight-specs for Dokdo-class elevators?

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 09:41
by Corsair1963
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Regardless, I still think the F-35B would be a far better solution both short-term and long-term. 8)
Not so sure. Does anyone have the dimensions and weight-specs for Dokdo-class elevators?



Very good question??? If, not could they be modified to carry the extra weight??? Also, I took they would going to modify a later Dokdo Class not the lead ship. Plus, is also said South Korea may build something similar to the BPE's. Before the New Class of Carriers was ready later in the next decade. Yet, it didn't sound like the BPE Type Carrier (Amphibious Ship?) wasn't that far off!

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 16:18
by XanderCrews
Corsair1963 wrote:In what context I am sure second hand Harriers would be available???


The USMC has been flying the guts out of its harriers thanks to the GWoT and the force got a badly needed refreshment of parts from buying the UK Harriers. The force is already shrinking, and I'm guessing there is going to be more cannibalization of parts as the Harriers were supposed to be in the rear view by now, but with the F-35 delays they are being retained longer and in larger numbers flying more hours than was previously projected.

Does this mean South Korea can't buy them and use them? of course not. Does this mean they are going to get some very old and busted airplanes that cost a lot to maintain with spare parts no longer produced? very possibly. I guess it just depends how long they want to actually use them. To me it seems like an expensive sideshow, but Korea bought them I would like it. I wouldn't envy their position but I am definitely not opposed to it.

As for pilot training I don't know how long the USMC is going to keep -203 churning out harrier pilots as well, so Korea may have a limited window. And no you don't want the Koreans learning themselves. Thats not an aircraft you just "learn by doing"

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 18:39
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:As for pilot training I don't know how long the USMC is going to keep -203 churning out harrier pilots as well, so Korea may have a limited window. And no you don't want the Koreans learning themselves. Thats not an aircraft you just "learn by doing"
Presumably, Harrier training will be available until ~2030, so that's not a problem. There could be an issue with finding airframes that aren't too knackered/cannibalized to fly; but if they're determined, cobbling together a force of 12-24 planes shouldn't be too difficult with so many boneyard residents to choose from.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 02:00
by weasel1962
Mactaggert Scott the scottish firm that provided the elevators don't have many announcements on this so information is sketchy but I'd be highly sceptical if the Dokdo's elevators can lift 27 tons. Its principally designed for helicopters around the 5 ton range. Even for harriers, it would mean empty carriage and load out on deck.

There are other 2nd hand options e.g. Spanish, Italian, Thai, Indian Harriers... The most likely option would be newly designed LHDs for F-35Bs.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 03:57
by USMilFan
In the event of such a conflict, both sides’ F-35s would succumb to software maladies and stop working rather quickly.


In the event of such a supremely foolish intervention, isn’t Sweetman aware that the US would instantly destroy whatever trust and goodwill between itself and every ally or friendly country in the world? Furthermore, isn’t he aware that the US, the world’s largest exporter of arms for at least the last 40 years or so, would instantly find itself unable to sell even a nickel’s worth of arms abroad for many years afterwards? I can assure Sweetman that the US is not so interested in committing national suicide as he imagines.

I’m forced to wonder if Sweetman suffers from some kind of psychosis. Is he that far out of touch with reality? For his own sake, I hope Spudman is correct in his assertion that Sweetman is merely making up shtuff.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 06:53
by XanderCrews
USMilFan wrote:I’m forced to wonder if Sweetman suffers from some kind of psychosis. Is he that far out of touch with reality? For his own sake, I hope Spudman is correct in his assertion that Sweetman is merely making up shtuff.


He seems to believe a lot of his own hype when posting on internet forums. So if he is making stuff up, he sure is committed to the bit. There is a part of me that does think he is putting on a grand show, and basically playing to his audience, other times he really does seem like that much of a nut who has lost his perspective.

Basically he continues to snark and hint at things without really saying it outright, and when caught in his BS (as I have witnessed on several forums) he tries to play lawyer "I never technically said that" kind of argument, or unmasked he attempts a fighting retreat which is extremely comical. He is not used to be challenged, and avoids even ground, or a fair fight at all costs. I know he sees himself as a clever "cheeky" brit with a dry wit, but he is really just ignorant euro trash, cruising on the work he did over 20 years ago.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 07:48
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Mactaggert Scott the scottish firm that provided the elevators don't have many announcements on this so information is sketchy but I'd be highly sceptical if the Dokdo's elevators can lift 27 tons. Its principally designed for helicopters around the 5 ton range. Even for harriers, it would mean empty carriage and load out on deck.

There are other 2nd hand options e.g. Spanish, Italian, Thai, Indian Harriers... The most likely option would be newly designed LHDs for F-35Bs.



Like talk about a BPE Type Ship soon to be followed by the Light Carriers the next decade.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 12:11
by glendora
weasel1962 wrote:There are other 2nd hand options e.g. Spanish, Italian, Thai, Indian Harriers... The most likely option would be newly designed LHDs for F-35Bs.


Just for sake of precision, I deem very improbable that Korea could acquire any Harrier other than the ones from USMC.
The 9 Thai AV-8A (built some 35 years ago, former Spanish Navy) were scrapped in 2006 after suffering lack of spares for years.
The Italian Navy will retain its 16 AV-8B+ at least until 2020, when probably there will be the IOC for the Italian F-35B (By 2019 only 6 F-35 B will be delivered to the Italian Navy, 3 of them will stay at Eglin, USA for initial training, the other ones most probably will be assigned initially to the Italian Test and Evaluation squadron). After that date I don't know if the AV-8B+ would still be airworthy and if the Korean Navy would have done further steps from the initial Dokdo class modification. It’s impossible that the Italian Navy would suddenly chose to give up its fixed wing capabilities, until 2020.

Spain will NOT sell the AV-8B+s, they will fly them from Juan Carlos I, launched just in 2008. Eventually, it’s possible that also the Spanish Navy eventually would buy a small number of F-35Bs, so most probably they would not chose to enter a capability gap for the few bucks that could come from selling the 17 remaining AV-8Bs.
The Indian Navy now has just 11 operational Sea Harriers (built between 25 and 30 years ago), with a very high attrition rate through the years. Most probably these aircraft will remain in service in India until the INS Viraat will be decommissioned (2018?). By then I don’t know how many Indian Sea Harrier will still be airworthy.
So the only Harriers avialbel for Korea would probably be the former USMC ones, with the limitations explained above by f414.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 17:26
by lamoey
Another article about their K-FX program where Slowman is spewing his usual stuff in the comments below.

KAI Proposes Smaller KF-X Design By Minseok Kim, Bradley Perrett

Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_28_2013_p24-629700.xml

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 17:50
by glendora
There are further news form South Korea, available at Reuters’ UK website (I don’t know whether the link I am going to post below will be available for other forum users or pending approval since I am new member).

South Korea set to go with F-35 fighters: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/2 ... HP20131029

If I understand well, in South Korea there will not be a new "F-X IV" contest, nor a new bidding, but in the next weeks there will be the announce that they will buy the F-35 (in numbers below the 60 originally planned).
From the article from Reuters:

Within the next few weeks, it is expected to reaffirm that South Korea needs a fighter with the stealth capabilities of the F-35, said a source with knowledge of the process. The sources asked not be named because they were not authorised to speak to the media.
With the South Korean government unlikely to increase the budget, the task force is expected to recommend that the country prioritise aircraft capability and use the same budget to buy fewer aircraft, one of the sources, with knowledge of the South Korean government's considerations, said.
Seoul originally planned to buy 60 fighters, but that could come down to around 40, with options for more, according to a second industry source.
The task force is also likely recommend that there is no need to assess the capability of the aircraft again, given that the results of DAPA's two-year evaluation are still valid, according to one of the sources.
A final contract could be signed by the third quarter of 2014 after the negotiations over the offset requirements, one source said.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 18:07
by lamoey
glendora wrote:There are further news form South Korea, available at Reuters’ UK website (I don’t know whether the link I am going to post below will be available for other forum users or pending approval since I am new member).

South Korea set to go with F-35 fighters: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/2 ... HP20131029

If I understand well, in South Korea there will not be a new "F-X IV" contest, nor a new bidding, but in the next weeks there will be the announce that they will buy the F-35 (in numbers below the 60 originally planned).
From the article from Reuters:

Within the next few weeks, it is expected to reaffirm that South Korea needs a fighter with the stealth capabilities of the F-35, said a source with knowledge of the process. The sources asked not be named because they were not authorised to speak to the media.
With the South Korean government unlikely to increase the budget, the task force is expected to recommend that the country prioritise aircraft capability and use the same budget to buy fewer aircraft, one of the sources, with knowledge of the South Korean government's considerations, said.
Seoul originally planned to buy 60 fighters, but that could come down to around 40, with options for more, according to a second industry source.
The task force is also likely recommend that there is no need to assess the capability of the aircraft again, given that the results of DAPA's two-year evaluation are still valid, according to one of the sources.
A final contract could be signed by the third quarter of 2014 after the negotiations over the offset requirements, one source said.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/korea-fighter-idUSL3N0IJ3FY20131029

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 20:06
by XanderCrews
glendora wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:There are other 2nd hand options e.g. Spanish, Italian, Thai, Indian Harriers... The most likely option would be newly designed LHDs for F-35Bs.


Just for sake of precision, I deem very improbable that Korea could acquire any Harrier other than the ones from USMC.
The 9 Thai AV-8A (built some 35 years ago, former Spanish Navy) were scrapped in 2006 after suffering lack of spares for years.
The Italian Navy will retain its 16 AV-8B+ at least until 2020, when probably there will be the IOC for the Italian F-35B (By 2019 only 6 F-35 B will be delivered to the Italian Navy, 3 of them will stay at Eglin, USA for initial training, the other ones most probably will be assigned initially to the Italian Test and Evaluation squadron). After that date I don't know if the AV-8B+ would still be airworthy and if the Korean Navy would have done further steps from the initial Dokdo class modification. It’s impossible that the Italian Navy would suddenly chose to give up its fixed wing capabilities, until 2020.

Spain will NOT sell the AV-8B+s, they will fly them from Juan Carlos I, launched just in 2008. Eventually, it’s possible that also the Spanish Navy eventually would buy a small number of F-35Bs, so most probably they would not chose to enter a capability gap for the few bucks that could come from selling the 17 remaining AV-8Bs.
The Indian Navy now has just 11 operational Sea Harriers (built between 25 and 30 years ago), with a very high attrition rate through the years. Most probably these aircraft will remain in service in India until the INS Viraat will be decommissioned (2018?). By then I don’t know how many Indian Sea Harrier will still be airworthy.
So the only Harriers avialbel for Korea would probably be the former USMC ones, with the limitations explained above by f414.


This is a great post^

Great time to emphasize that not all Harriers are created or upgraded equally either.

CSB:

Down a bird in Iraq a USMC squadron looked into getting an airframe located in storage in a neighboring friendly country. It was dicey as the older airframe had been parked there for over 10 years, and thus had missed out on the AV-8B continuous safety upgrades. The Avaition Admin people talked to the XO about it, and the XO asked them to tell the CO what they told them. So the CO had a decision to make, he could be down a bird for the rest of the deployment, or risk getting the older bird with fewer safety upgrades. The CO eventually decided to be down a bird than get the 10 year old harrier. which should tell you something.

Harriers are certainly not "plug and play" types. If Korea were to get 12-24 of them they would sure as hell want to get them all from the same source, rather than a spattering of different variants with varying levels of safety from various countries of various ages.

OTOH Its aviation, which means you can throw money at a lot of problems to make them go away, but it sure would seem strange in light of the hard cap DAPA set for this whole messy competition to get advanced fighters, but think nothing of throwing large sums of cash to maintain a token force of user unfriendly aircraft near obsolescence.

my 0.02. I maintain the right the right to correct myself if proven wrong 8)

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 20:30
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:Great time to emphasize that not all Harriers are created or upgraded equally either.

CSB:

Down a bird in Iraq a USMC squadron looked into getting an airframe located in storage in a neighboring friendly country. It was dicey as the older airframe had been parked there for over 10 years, and thus had missed out on the AV-8B continuous safety upgrades. The Avaition Admin people talked to the XO about it, and the XO asked them to tell the CO what they told them. So the CO had a decision to make, he could be down a bird for the rest of the deployment, or risk getting the older bird with fewer safety upgrades. The CO eventually decided to be down a bird than get the 10 year old harrier. which should tell you something.

Harriers are certainly not "plug and play" types. If Korea were to get 12-24 of them they would sure as hell want to get them all from the same source, rather than a spattering of different variants with varying levels of safety from various countries of various ages.

OTOH Its aviation, which means you can throw money at a lot of problems to make them go away, but it sure would seem strange in light of the hard cap DAPA set for this whole messy competition to get advanced fighters, but think nothing of throwing large sums of cash to maintain a token force of user unfriendly aircraft near obsolescence.

my 0.02. I maintain the right the right to correct myself if proven wrong 8)
One would assume that the Koreans are fully aware of used-Harrier limitations and attune to the fact that such a force would be token in nature. The point of their 1st-stage plan (as with the Chinese) is most likely to gain experience, with a secondary goal of providing a basic TACAIR presence over disputed ocean spaces. It's somewhat unlikely that the Dokdo-class can handle an operationally useful fixed-wing component, be it with Harriers or F-35Bs (assuming the Bee would even fit). That said, I still like the idea of starting quickly with a bodged-together solution instead of just touting ambitious plans.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 22:50
by XanderCrews
lookieloo wrote: That said, I still like the idea of starting quickly with a bodged-together solution instead of just touting ambitious plans.


In this case though the bodged-together solution is just an ambitious plan. I really can't see them actually buying harriers and going through with the whole thing. I think they are better off buying F-35As and then transferring those pilots to the Bees when they decide to get them or formally announcing buying a token force of Bees to have at Eglin and just starting a training Cadre from there and rotating pilots through them and gathering experience with USMC/UK exchange pilot programs. Its going to be much easier to take F-35A or even F-16 pilots and make them F-35B pilots than it will be to take F-16 pilots and make them Harrier pilots. If time isn't too much of a factor, like lets say 2025 they want their first carrier squadron that is plenty of time to accrue F-35s and F-35 time.

I guess it depends on the time line but its going to take a couple years to get the harriers moving anyway so to me, if they aren't getting their harriers in the next few years they are better off waiting at that point.

There are a few ways to gather real world experience without having to buy end of life harriers, and setting up training and infrastructure to show the flag, and honestly there isn't a whole lot to learn that will transfer IMHO. Its like saying I won't allow you to drive a car until you have mastered the bicycle. yes there is stuff to learn about naval aviation and I get that, but how much you are getting for what it costs, when waiting would make things easier? how experience are they gaining when the jets are busted all the time?

If there is anything I have learned about naval operations and harriers, its have spares. If Korea want to maintain a force of between 12-24 harriers over 5 years they better buy between 18 and 32 respectively plus the TAV-8's

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 23:28
by glendora
XanderCrews wrote:This is a great post^

Great time to emphasize that not all Harriers are created or upgraded equally either.

....


Thank you :blushing: . Glad to see that somebody appreciated my little contributions to this very intersting forum (I have been lurking here for months). I take this as a Welcome.

Feel free to ask in the relevant sections of this forum questions about AMI/MM and their present and past programs, I will do my best to answer any questions related to these Italian services for which I have some grasp.

Sorry for the little OT and for any grammar error - English is not my native language.

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2013, 03:02
by Corsair1963
glendora wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:There are other 2nd hand options e.g. Spanish, Italian, Thai, Indian Harriers... The most likely option would be newly designed LHDs for F-35Bs.


Just for sake of precision, I deem very improbable that Korea could acquire any Harrier other than the ones from USMC.
The 9 Thai AV-8A (built some 35 years ago, former Spanish Navy) were scrapped in 2006 after suffering lack of spares for years.
The Italian Navy will retain its 16 AV-8B+ at least until 2020, when probably there will be the IOC for the Italian F-35B (By 2019 only 6 F-35 B will be delivered to the Italian Navy, 3 of them will stay at Eglin, USA for initial training, the other ones most probably will be assigned initially to the Italian Test and Evaluation squadron). After that date I don't know if the AV-8B+ would still be airworthy and if the Korean Navy would have done further steps from the initial Dokdo class modification. It’s impossible that the Italian Navy would suddenly chose to give up its fixed wing capabilities, until 2020.

Spain will NOT sell the AV-8B+s, they will fly them from Juan Carlos I, launched just in 2008. Eventually, it’s possible that also the Spanish Navy eventually would buy a small number of F-35Bs, so most probably they would not chose to enter a capability gap for the few bucks that could come from selling the 17 remaining AV-8Bs.
The Indian Navy now has just 11 operational Sea Harriers (built between 25 and 30 years ago), with a very high attrition rate through the years. Most probably these aircraft will remain in service in India until the INS Viraat will be decommissioned (2018?). By then I don’t know how many Indian Sea Harrier will still be airworthy.
So the only Harriers avialbel for Korea would probably be the former USMC ones, with the limitations explained above by f414.


Has South Korea even purchased any secondhand recently??? Can't think of anything???

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2013, 05:33
by weasel1962
The report states the Koreans want harriers.That's out of production so the only source are 2nd hand ones. There's no new build options.

I think Glendora has missed some facts. Spain actually designed the Juan Carlos to operate the F-35B. The assumption that the Spanish will not dispose of their harriers is not well backed up. Perhaps the only reason they haven't done so is their economy. Same reason as the Italians with the Cavour.

The Viraat as pointed out was due to retire but the Indians were forced to carry on operations because of CV delays. As a result, the Harriers were upgraded (2009). The 1st of which will enter service. They have operated a single CV for years.

As to the Thais, they retired the ex-Spanish AV-8s (the Spanish won't sell?) in 2006. I'm not sure what is the source that were scrapped so maybe you can ask Glendora.

For the Americans, if there were any plans to dispose of the Harriers, they wouldn't have bought the UK ones. The delays to F-35B introduction again as a result of budgets forces USMC to extend Harrier service life. In that context, would the USMC really want to part with their Harriers?

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2013, 05:59
by Corsair1963
Honestly, I would be surprised if South Korea purchased secondhand Harriers. Far better case for F-35B's.

1.) ROKAF is likely to get F-35A's. Which, would share a great deal and lower the cost of any F-35B purchase.

2.) As been stated the Harriers have been used extensively and remaining Service Lives would be short.

3.) Harriers are difficult to fly and have a high attrition rate. Not good for an Air Force new to the type!

4.) South Korea is looking to field Superior Types. The Harrier is from the previous generation and is sub-sonic at that.

5.) Even if South Korea purchased Harriers in the short-term. They would eventually purchase the F-35B. So, what's the point of purchasing two types?

6.) South Korea doesn't have a History of purchasing secondhand aircraft.

7.) One the reasons stated for wanting Aircraft Carriers. Would be to counter Chinese Military Expansion. The Harrier would be extremely lacking to counter the current J-15 let alone future types.

8.) The F-35 offers far greater range and payload than the Harrier.

9.) The F-35 can operate within a digital network with other assets. (other F-35's, Aegis, etc.)

10.) The Stealth of the F-35 give the South Korean Navy First Strike Capabilities like no other platform!

etc, etc, etc,

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2013, 06:43
by weasel1962
I agree. There's too many variables for the Koreans to consider for a Harrier option, some out of their control, that makes a F-35B buy more feasible. For all we know, its an indirect strategy to lead on to an F-35B conclusion.

Just checked the scramble database for the Thai harriers. The status indicates "stored" for 2 TAV-8s and 5 of the AV-8s are stored at U-tapao airbase updated as at Jan 2013. 1 other (s/n 159558) has become a monument. Another (s/no 159562) is stated as "withdrawn from service. Not sure where Glendora got the "scrapped" information from.

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2013, 07:36
by Corsair1963
Yeah, the F-35B is so much easier to fly and land than the Harrier.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the South Koreans purchase 50-60 F-35A's in the first batch to be followed buy a second batch of F-35A's and F-35B's. As long as I am thinking about it. The same thing may also happen in the case of Japan. Especially, now that South Korea has openly admitted that is wants Aircraft Carriers.

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2013, 08:26
by geogen
With all respect, I think the the speculative discussion (i.e., conjecturing et al) vis-a-vis potential for RoK building two (2) light-carriers between 2028-2036 and if so; then which exact mix of aircraft operating (be they manned, and/or next-gen unmanned), is getting ahead of itself. There will most likely be extreme developments in future technological combat aviation/capabilities options and doctrine by that time to downplay any need to be cheering on F-35B as a realistic near/medium-term play, imho. Sure, an hypothetical block VI F-35B might be a viable and realistic solution to fulfill part of that future aviation requirement...but probably, it's simply wasted breath at this point and time.

As for any hypothetical near-term 'capability-gap' requirement to actually go ahead and deploy 1 or 2 modified, ski-jump equipped LHD hulls by 2020 with 2nd hand VTOL aircraft; that's a different subject and we'll have to see how such a requirement transpires. Respects.

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2013, 12:18
by glendora
weasel1962 wrote:I think Glendora has missed some facts. Spain actually designed the Juan Carlos to operate the F-35B. The assumption that the Spanish will not dispose of their harriers is not well backed up. Perhaps the only reason they haven't done so is their economy. Same reason as the Italians with the Cavour.

....

As to the Thais, they retired the ex-Spanish AV-8s (the Spanish won't sell?) in 2006. I'm not sure what is the source that were scrapped so maybe you can ask Glendora.


Weasel with all due respect, I’d like to point out some more facts:

Spain sold 9 of its early first-generation Hawker Siddeley AV-8A Harriers (AV-8S Matador as for the Spanish denomination) to Thailand only in 1998, when the Spanish Navy had acquired the new McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II (second generation, EAV-8B Matador II/EAV-8B Matador II Plus in the Spanish designation) and their pilots already converted to the new type. (So, no the Spanish won't sell right now).

The Thai Navy had from the start significant logistical problems keeping the Harriers operational due to a shortage of funds for spare parts and equipment, leaving only a few Harriers serviceable at a time. In 1999, two years after being delivered, only one airframe was in airworthy condition. The last first-generation Harriers were retired by Thailand in 2006.

Even though they could figure as "stored" in Scramble, you can figure out their airworthiness by now. These aircraft were built between 1973 (8 AV-8S and 2 TAV-8S delivered to Spain in 1973 in the first lot) and 1980 (5 AV-8S delivered to Spain in the second lot).

Much better for Korea to try out to acquire some newer machines from USMC; at least the USA would have some long time strategic interest in South Korea acquiring the capability to operate fixed wing from a carrier. (Still remain correct what you wrote about the unwillingness by USMC to sell such "precious" machines).

If you don’t trust the wikipedia page on the the Hawker Siddeley Harrier as a reliable source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier, you could use as reference Carpenter & Wiencek, Asian Security Handbook 2000, p. 302.

It takes years to gain the capabilities to operate fixed wing a/c from a carrier, but only a short time to lose such capabilities.

That’s the very reason why Korea is looking to acquire some Harriers before they actually launch the new light-carriers between 2028-2036: to make sure that the Navy personnel would be ready to convert timely to the F-35B without having to go through the basics with the advanced new type.

That’s the same reason for which Spain will NOT dismiss its 17 AV-8B even though the Juan Carlos is designed to operate the F-35B (unless Spain decides to dismiss also the JC I).

Same applies to Italy, which is using intensively the AV-8B+ from the Cavour, even though the ship is designed to operate the Lighting II. Obviously, nothing prevents a light carrier designed to operate the larger and heavier F-35 to launch the smaller Harriers in the meantime.

Regards

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 00:15
by weasel1962
No disagreements with what you wrote on Spain and Italy. What's not stated is the next step in the logic is that if Spain and/or Italy were to acquire F-35Bs, then their older harriers become surplus to requirements. Whilst Spain hasn't actively said it will acquire F-35Bs, clearly Italy has for the purpose of operating it off the cavour. Same goes for India when they get a new carrier. So why wouldn't these be realistic harrier options especially in the timelines enumerated in the article?

Just to be clear, no disagreement about the Thai difficulties in operating the ex-Spanish AV-8s either. However, "stored" doesn't mean that the airframes were not stored in flyable conditions nor does it mean they can't fly either. The Thais did fly the harriers just not the entire fleet. The cost of operating a fixed wing aircraft carrier capability to a small economy such as Thailand who faced the Asian economic crisis had a bigger impact on sortie rates. Something the Koreans don't face as an economic tiger. It could just be easily a cost issue. As mentioned, I think going straight to the F-35B (even without a LHD) makes sense.

Having said that, we can agree to disagree whether these are realistic harrier options since ultimately its the Koreans who will look at these options and decide. No impact on me.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 06:24
by XanderCrews
weasel1962 wrote:No disagreements with what you wrote on Spain and Italy. What's not stated is the next step in the logic is that if Spain and/or Italy were to acquire F-35Bs, then their older harriers become surplus to requirements. Whilst Spain hasn't actively said it will acquire F-35Bs, clearly Italy has for the purpose of operating it off the cavour. Same goes for India when they get a new carrier. So why wouldn't these be realistic harrier options especially in the timelines enumerated in the article?


Why would you buy cast off Harriers while F-35Bs are clearly available?

If Spain is replacing their Harriers with F-35Bs, why wouldn't the Koreans just order F-35Bs as well and skip the harriers altogether?

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 08:13
by weasel1962
There are 2 schools of thought on that one. The first is to buy the best equipment and hope that one can maximise its utilisation. The 2nd is to study the capability, build incremental capabilities to understand the capabilities before embarking on a full scale acquisition. Both are practiced in today's world.

Its like buying a high end mobile phone (for a geriatric who has never used a phone). Some buy it but never use most of the features. You shouldn't do that for a $100mil plane much less a $multi bil acquisition for sqns of aircraft but some would do so. The complexities of STOVL LHD operations cannot be underestimated. Get the decision wrong like the Thais and you end up with a half-used or hardly used capability.

Getting Harriers, assuming these are available, even a half sqn could allow the Koerans a far cheaper way to identify what are the issues of STOVL operations. On the flip side, some may argue it wouldn't be representative since the F-35B essentially renders STOVL ops a lot safer and more efficient. I could think of a thousand questions to ask on a simple topic like how to right-size an LHD. Spain, UK, Italy who have operated harriers each came up to different conclusions due to the different requirements. The UK flip flops are very well known on this forum. Its not an easy decision imho.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 17:11
by cantaz
The thing is, committing to a STOVL carrier and a Harrier unit for evaluation purposes is still very expensive. Couldn't most of that be instead accomplished with some sort of exchange program with the USMC?

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 20:50
by spazsinbad
Story covers old ground but here for the 'price' projection....

Lockheed Martin touts F-35’s strengths in future combat 31 Oct 2013 Song Sang-ho
"...Observers and officials are concerned the decision [next-generation fighter jet project reset] could cause a delay in the plan to deploy 60 high-end warplanes from 2017-2021.

Scott expressed confidence about the delivery commitment despite worries about a possible delay.

“The offer that the U.S. government and Lockheed Martin submitted included deliveries beginning as early as 2017, and we can still maintain those deliveries if there is a decision made to proceed forward in the near future,” he said.

Touching on the acquisition cost, Scott reiterated that Korea would be in the “sweet spot” of the cost curve as the production of the F-35 would ramp up with more customers placing orders.

“The cost of the F-35 has come down substantially. From the first-year production to the seventh-year production, we decreased the price by 55 percent and we will continue to decrease that price as we increase the production rate,” he said.

The U.S. government projects the F-35A model ordered in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will be $85 million for the airplane. To that, we need to add spares, support and training and other things that go to create a full capability for the ROKAF (Republic of Korea Air Force). But that is a very competitive price compared to current generation planes.”

Lockheed Martin currently has 75 F-35s flying in the test, training and initial operational fleets. They have completed around 6,500 flights, flying over 10,000 hours altogether. The U.S. Air Force aims to achieve initial operational capability with the F-35A in late 2016.

Scott said the development of the F-35 software was on track. Now, the “Block-2A” software is being tested with a plan to complete the final combat-capable Block 3-F version in late 2016...."

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20131031000781

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 10:56
by weasel1962
cantaz wrote:The thing is, committing to a STOVL carrier and a Harrier unit for evaluation purposes is still very expensive. Couldn't most of that be instead accomplished with some sort of exchange program with the USMC?


The Koreans aren't going to build a STOVL carrier to operate harriers. What could probably happen is acquisition of harriers to operate (if they can get their hands on some) and understand how STOVL operations work, possibly with technical exchanges (e.g. USMC LHDs) or using existing LHDs (to understand the limitations of existing LHD designs). They may hire e.g. ex-RN pilots to train the pilots to operate the Harriers. Then design a LHD that operates F-35Bs.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 12:06
by popcorn
Boeing is not the only one pinning it's hopes on a split order.

http://m.yna.co.kr/mob2/en/contents_en. ... 315&mobile


(LEAD) Defense exhibition opens sales talk for S. Korean fighter deal

... EADS, which acknowledged Seoul's growing appetite for stealth jets, bet on chances of split purchases of different jets, saying operating Eurofighter alongside the F-35 fleet can be a good way to take full advantage from the acquisition program.

"There is a unique opportunity to have F-35 to have its stealth capabilities. The other alternative that satisfies the other criteria is Eurofighter Typhoon, with window of opportunity possibly in split deal ... to open a strategic dimension in Europe," Scherer said.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 14:16
by bigjku
popcorn wrote:Boeing is not the only one pinning it's hopes on a split order.

http://m.yna.co.kr/mob2/en/contents_en. ... 315&mobile


(LEAD) Defense exhibition opens sales talk for S. Korean fighter deal

... EADS, which acknowledged Seoul's growing appetite for stealth jets, bet on chances of split purchases of different jets, saying operating Eurofighter alongside the F-35 fleet can be a good way to take full advantage from the acquisition program.

"There is a unique opportunity to have F-35 to have its stealth capabilities. The other alternative that satisfies the other criteria is Eurofighter Typhoon, with window of opportunity possibly in split deal ... to open a strategic dimension in Europe," Scherer said.


What strategic dimension with Europe could you possibly open? Europe has little to no presence in that area with little to no military ability to project presence in that area. I would not doubt for a second that in the event things got band for South Korea with NK or China that Europe would cut off sales to both sides as well as they won't risk offending China.

Moreover why would you do a split buy to get a handful of unique airframes in your force? A split buy with F-15K's makes a little sense (I think it is a waste) logistically at least. Buying two dozen Eurofighters? Why would you bother.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 14:50
by popcorn
bigjku wrote:
popcorn wrote:Boeing is not the only one pinning it's hopes on a split order.

http://m.yna.co.kr/mob2/en/contents_en. ... 315&mobile


(LEAD) Defense exhibition opens sales talk for S. Korean fighter deal

... EADS, which acknowledged Seoul's growing appetite for stealth jets, bet on chances of split purchases of different jets, saying operating Eurofighter alongside the F-35 fleet can be a good way to take full advantage from the acquisition program.

"There is a unique opportunity to have F-35 to have its stealth capabilities. The other alternative that satisfies the other criteria is Eurofighter Typhoon, with window of opportunity possibly in split deal ... to open a strategic dimension in Europe,"
Scherer said.


What strategic dimension with Europe could you possibly open? Europe has little to no presence in that area with little to no military ability to project presence in that area. I would not doubt for a second that in the event things got band for South Korea with NK or China that Europe would cut off sales to both sides as well as they won't risk offending China.

Moreover why would you do a split buy to get a handful of unique airframes in your force? A split buy with F-15K's makes a little sense (I think it is a waste) logistically at least. Buying two dozen Eurofighters? Why would you bother.


Agree completely.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 15:57
by SpudmanWP
bigjku wrote:... EADS, which acknowledged Seoul's growing appetite for stealth jets, bet on chances of split purchases of different jets, saying operating Eurofighter alongside the F-35 fleet can be a good way to take full advantage from the acquisition program.


It makes ZERO sense to go the Eurofighter way if there is a split buy.

It would introduce a third logistics train with little benefit over the F-15SE in the A2A arena.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 23:24
by Corsair1963
geogen wrote:With all respect, I think the the speculative discussion (i.e., conjecturing et al) vis-a-vis potential for RoK building two (2) light-carriers between 2028-2036 and if so; then which exact mix of aircraft operating (be they manned, and/or next-gen unmanned), is getting ahead of itself. There will most likely be extreme developments in future technological combat aviation/capabilities options and doctrine by that time to downplay any need to be cheering on F-35B as a realistic near/medium-term play, imho. Sure, an hypothetical block VI F-35B might be a viable and realistic solution to fulfill part of that future aviation requirement...but probably, it's simply wasted breath at this point and time.

As for any hypothetical near-term 'capability-gap' requirement to actually go ahead and deploy 1 or 2 modified, ski-jump equipped LHD hulls by 2020 with 2nd hand VTOL aircraft; that's a different subject and we'll have to see how such a requirement transpires. Respects.


That would be great but even in another 10-15 years what option does South Korea have except the F-35????

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 23:26
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:
bigjku wrote:... EADS, which acknowledged Seoul's growing appetite for stealth jets, bet on chances of split purchases of different jets, saying operating Eurofighter alongside the F-35 fleet can be a good way to take full advantage from the acquisition program.


It makes ZERO sense to go the Eurofighter way if there is a split buy.

It would introduce a third logistics train with little benefit over the F-15SE in the A2A arena.



I see no case for a split buy in the first place.........(IMO)

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 23:39
by geogen
Corsair1963 wrote:
That would be great but even in another 10-15 years what option does South Korea have except the F-35????


It could very well include a future mix of manned/manned optional block V/VI F-35B + not yet developed unmanned UCAV type down the road.

I'm just saying that there is no rush to jump into a near-term, premature/risky, expensive block II/III F-35B procurement for an hypothetical light-carrier which might be operational by 2030.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 23:59
by lookieloo
Corsair1963 wrote:I see no case for a split buy in the first place.........(IMO)
I can, but it wouldn't involve SE or Typhoon. Korea is in a hurry, so they might order a few copies off the F-15SA production run. Alternatively, they could split FX-III between the F-35 and a few more of their own FA-50. Either measure would expedite replacement of older types and ensure a better price on JSF. Then again, their long-term military interests and ours would be best served by purchasing the full order in F-35s... the sooner, the better.

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2013, 03:45
by weasel1962
It really depends on the timelines. Right now, all variants of the F-35 are "premature/risky, expensive block II/III". IOC for B is 2015, A = 2016 and those are on blk 2B for the B and 3I? for the A. Bogdan has repeatedly said to date, its not clear if it can meet the Q3 2017/2018 timeline for implementation. It might be more clear within the next 12 months when 3F can be delivered however its not going to provide clarity for Block 4. Block 4 that include maritime strike will only come online, at the earliest, 2020-2021 period.

Most (including the Koreans) have forgotten that one of the major consideration for the FX-III was the timelime. Then in 2011, it was meant to deploy between 2014 to 2019. The ROK will need to decide if they want to stick to the timeline (to obtain a lower capability aircraft) or risk a capability gap until 2020s. Seen in that context and timelines, the F-15K/SE was the right choice. Boeing still could end up with FX-III imho but that could be dependent on the outcome of when 3F can be delivered. Looking at the track record of meeting timelines, anyone thinks LM will actually meet Blk 3F timeline?

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2013, 04:34
by lookieloo
weasel1962 wrote: Looking at the track record of meeting timelines, anyone thinks LM will actually meet Blk 3F timeline?
You seem to forget that a few months ago, none of the variants were expected to be operational before 2017-18. LM has poached extra engineers for the process, so even money on 3F at this point.

Regardless, I still find Boeing's IOC timeline for the SE-proper to be utterly laughable. If Korea's in such a rush, best take something already in production.

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2013, 04:50
by spazsinbad
As seen in the OZ thread....

Australia's F-35 Buy Unaffected by US Sequestration 31 Oct 2013 NIGEL PITTAWAY
"...Air Vice Marshal Kym Osley said the NACC Project Office estimates there may be up to seven months of risk remaining in the development of the war-fighting capability software, known as Block 3F (Final). While this isn’t likely to affect Australian operational capability, which is not due until the end of 2020, it could affect US Marine Corps and Air Force plans...."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... uestration

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2013, 05:12
by lookieloo
Seven months risk? On 3F? That's it? That's the big "software challenge" everyone's been crying about all this time?

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2013, 06:18
by Corsair1963
geogen wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
That would be great but even in another 10-15 years what option does South Korea have except the F-35????


It could very well include a future mix of manned/manned optional block V/VI F-35B + not yet developed unmanned UCAV type down the road.

I'm just saying that there is no rush to jump into a near-term, premature/risky, expensive block II/III F-35B procurement for an hypothetical light-carrier which might be operational by 2030.


Sounds reasonable "yet" the article at least implied that the BPE Type LHD would come before 2020. So, if South Korea wants F-35B's to be available when the ship is ready to enter service. Than a decision will have to be made shortly...

Which, doesn't mean that later batches of the types you described couldn't be purchased later for the true "Carriers".

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 01:35
by maus92
South Korea needs both F-15s and F-35s: retired USAF general
JON HEMMERDINGER WASHINGTON DC / Flight Global

"A retired US Air Force chief of staff recommends South Korea acquire Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft in the near-term, saying the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter will be a “paper tiger” until the early 2020s when it has updated software.

Retired Gen. Ron Fogleman, now a Boeing consultant, tells reporters during a 4 October event hosted by Boeing that South Korea would be best served with mix F-15s and F-35s.

He warns that an F-35-only order will leave the country without sufficient combat readiness starting in 2016 and 2017 as the South Korean air force retires McDonnell Douglas F-4 and Northrop F-5 aircraft.

“The F-35 doesn’t have the combat capability today that that F-15 has,” says Fogleman, who is also a chairman of the board of Alliant Techsystems, which makes components for the F-35. “There is a real requirement for near-term combat capability.”"

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... al-392532/

Note that the former General is both a Boeing consultant (maker of the F-15 and a weapons integrator for F-35,) and COB of Alliant, another major F-35 sub.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 02:42
by lookieloo
maus92 wrote:South Korea needs both F-15s and F-35s: retired USAF general
JON HEMMERDINGER WASHINGTON DC / Flight Global

"A retired US Air Force chief of staff recommends South Korea acquire Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft in the near-term, saying the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter will be a “paper tiger” until the early 2020s when it has updated software.

Retired Gen. Ron Fogleman, now a Boeing consultant, tells reporters during a 4 October event hosted by Boeing that South Korea would be best served with mix F-15s and F-35s.

He warns that an F-35-only order will leave the country without sufficient combat readiness starting in 2016 and 2017 as the South Korean air force retires McDonnell Douglas F-4 and Northrop F-5 aircraft.

“The F-35 doesn’t have the combat capability today that that F-15 has,” says Fogleman, who is also a chairman of the board of Alliant Techsystems, which makes components for the F-35. “There is a real requirement for near-term combat capability.”"

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... al-392532/

Note that the former General is both a Boeing consultant (maker of the F-15 and major subcontractor for F-35,) and COB of Alliant, another major F-35 sub.
At this point, SE is more "paper" than the F-35. I don't understand why Boeing continues to shoot itself in the foot by pushing the SE when they could easily entice Korea into an SA purchase for short-term requirements.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 02:45
by SpudmanWP
Boeing is NOT a major (or any IIRC) sub-contractor for the F-35.

They were a major sub on the F-22.

The F-35 doesn’t have the combat capability today that that F-15 has


The F-35 is not being bought for today's combat environment, but for the environment that it will see in the next 30 years.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 03:19
by spazsinbad
At the top of this page is the 'Osley' comment about potential Software Block 3F delay being 7 months - here is the time frame from the 'maus92' cited article above - for the clarification in it:

"...F-35s will have the so-called Block 3F software.

That upgrade will gives the aircraft its full operational capabilities, meaning it will have improved performance and the ability to carry a wider range of weapons....

...Though the US Marine Corps. and US Air Force will both take delivery of F-35s with earlier versions of the software, the US Navy is holding out for the Block 3F software.

The navy’s aircraft will have initial operational capability (IOC) between August 2018 and February 2019, while the marines and air force will have IOC by 2015 and 2016, respectively, according to a June Department of Defense report."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... al-392532/

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 03:42
by weasel1962
lookieloo wrote:Seven months risk? On 3F? That's it? That's the big "software challenge" everyone's been crying about all this time?


Its the estimate at this time until something happens that delays it again. Hopefully nothing will happen. The below is what Bogdan said in April 2013.

I am moderately confident that the program will successfully release the Block 2B and 3I capability by 2015 and 2016, respectively. However, I see more risk to the delivery of Block 3F, our full warfighting, capability by 2017. I will have better information to assess if we can meet our Block 3F promises after the Block 3 Critical Design Review and after at least six months of flight test on our 2B software, both of which are currently scheduled for early summer, 2013.


It will be surprising if anyone has better info than Bogdan. It should however be clearer to the Koreans by next year where the F-35 program stands on 3F. That 3F delivery could be the determinant when Koreans adopt the F-35. Could be the same reason why Singapore has not announced its buy yet either.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 05:09
by maus92
SpudmanWP wrote:Boeing is NOT a major (or any IIRC) sub-contractor for the F-35.

They were a major sub on the F-22.



Changed it to "weapons integrator"

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 11:41
by popcorn
15 former ROKAF Chiefs trump 1 former USAF Chief every day of the week and twice on Sundays. :D

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 17:55
by stobiewan
maus92 wrote:
Retired Gen. Ron Fogleman, now a Boeing consultant, tells reporters during a 4 October event hosted by Boeing that South Korea would be best served with mix F-15s and F-35s.


Shock horror, Boeing consultant recommends Boeing product.

Hrmm...

What'd the F15 be bringing to the party by the way? It's quicker, bit more range?

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 18:38
by JetTest
A good diversion to keep the North Koreans distracted while the F35's sneak in to kill them....

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 19:06
by haavarla
Conan wrote:
popcorn wrote:Since the F-35 is in no danger of being threatened by disqualification, a change is called for.

Boeing is still smarting from the recent turn of events and pins it's hopes on a split order despite clear indications that the SE is inadequate per ROKAF.
Funny that Boeing keeps singing it's "stealth has compromised the F-35" and "5Gen is a LM marketing slogan" when the customer isn't buying it and really places a high premium on stealth and the advanced capabilities of the jet.

As for an earlier delivery date, it's really up to the SOKOR government to expedite matters. The production line can easily accommodate a SK order.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 39.xml&p=1

...Muilenburg argues that for an assured price, an upgraded F-15 can offer Seoul a much-needed capability quickly. “The terminology ‘fifth-generation fighter’ is a convenient marketing tool” for Lockheed Martin, he says, referring to the F-35. “A lot of discussion has gone into all-aspect stealth. I prefer to talk about all-aspect fighters that are not compromised for stealth.” Though the Silent Eagle lacks all-aspect stealth, it is optimized for frontal aspect stealth and features a far superior ..payload and speed over the F-35, Muilenburg says.


So let me get this right. "5th Generation" is a Lockheed Martin marketing term when it's applied to F-35 but it wasn't a marketing term when it was applied to Boeing's intended F-32?

Right....

Where is Soloman and BS to swallow this BS hook, line and sinker, eh?



Muilenburg do have a good point, about this..
Nice to read something that isn't completly Biased and full of halftruth for a change..
The F-35 baseline design and role is not without its compromises. These Compromises have their pratical operational limits. No matter how great the F-35 will eventually become, it will never be greater than its own achilles(weakest link).

RE: Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 22:06
by hb_pencil
What kind of ridiculous comment is that? So the sales comment from a boeing vice president is considered not biased or full of half truths, compared to the statements of DoD representatives who are, by law, directed to obtain the best value for money for the United States and speak truthfully under oath to congress.

And please help me wrap my head around how undertaking a third major modification of a 50 year old design by incorporating theoretical advances (modern low observables) that were made nearly twenty years after its introduction ISN'T more of a major compromise than a clean sheet design of the F-35. Seriously... its a ridiculous statement on your behalf.

Certainly there are advantages for going with the F-15, but everything you said here is just completely off the mark.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 00:20
by weasel1962
Let's focus on the facts, not the person. ANAO had previously stated in Sep 2012 that Block 3 will be finalised in Feb 2019.

http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/Aud ... 2-2013/F35

The difference in timings appaears to be due to testing but the report does indicate that current performance are already close to ORD. Whether 2020 is far off from that date is a matter of subjectivity, however any acquisition before testing is complete is not risk free. That's assuming the date holds.

What Block 3F does not include in terms of weapons capability is JASSM, JSOW, SDB-II, GBU-54, JSM capability. That will likely be in block 4 or later. However, that can be retrofit. Nevertheless, any F-35 acquired before 2020 will not have those capabilities in that period until it is retrofitted after 2020. Retrofit will cost $. With the exception of the JSM and SDB-II which are not in production, the F-15K is capable of using those munitions up to 2020. How significant a capability gap to Korean defence is really a matter of Korean perception. Boeing will say the gap is the grand canyon, LM will claim its a 2 inch hole. At the same time, LM will argue F-35 acquisition before 2020 will still confer a stealth aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 00:32
by hb_pencil
weasel1962 wrote:Let's focus on the facts, not the person. ANAO had previously stated in Sep 2012 that Block 3 will be finalised in Feb 2019.

http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/Aud ... 2-2013/F35

The difference in timings appaears to be due to testing but the report does indicate that current performance are already close to ORD. Whether 2020 is far off from that date is a matter of subjectivity, however any acquisition before testing is complete is not risk free. That's assuming the date holds.

What Block 3F does not include in terms of weapons capability is JASSM, JSOW, SDB-II, GBU-54, JSM capability. That will likely be in block 4 or later. However, that can be retrofit. Nevertheless, any F-35 acquired before 2020 will not have those capabilities in that period until it is retrofitted after 2020. Retrofit will cost $. With the exception of the JSM and SDB-II which are not in production, the F-15K is capable of using those munitions up to 2020. How significant a capability gap to Korean defence is really a matter of Korean perception. Boeing will say the gap is the grand canyon, LM will claim its a 2 inch hole. At the same time, LM will argue F-35 acquisition before 2020 will still confer a stealth aircraft.



AFAIK the difference between block 3F and 4 not retrofits in the classical sense that costs major funding. I'd have to look at the chart but its more a software development issue rather than a physical refit (I think 4 can go onto the upcoming technical refresh 2 suite.) The only exception there is possible weapons adapters (ie pylons) that are needed, such as AMRAAM dual rail. For the most part 4 will be a software update that enables more of the physical capabilities and functions already present in the aircraft.

It should also be stressed that ORD capabilities are required to function to fulfill contract agreement between the USG and LM. The US may chose to operate with 3F that does not have all of the agreed-to function but LM must complete them to meet their contract. I'm not entirely sure, but I think that also goes for the member nation because its part of the MOU (I'll check on that.)

Also, are you sure that JSOW can't be carried? I haven't seen anything to suggest that it had been moved to block 4... though I could be wrong.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 01:07
by spazsinbad
"Block 4 Candidate Weapons March 2012
Small Diameter Bomb, Increment II (SDB-II)
Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW)
C-1 Norwegian Joint Strike Missile (JSM)
Turkish Stand-Off Missile (SOM)
AIM-9X Block II
Additional Combat Rounds
Additional dual-mode bombs, such as Laser-JDAM"

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012annual_psr/WERTH.pdf (0.7Mb)

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_35_block_plan_239.jpg

Image

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 01:36
by hb_pencil
Ah so you are correct... thanks!

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 01:59
by cantaz
Wait, based on that presentation from the 2012 Precision Strike Annual Review, the B and C aren't slated for any SDB integration out to Block 3F? I thought once a weapon was integrated in one model, it was more or less good to go in the other two as well? I'm also surprised that the SDB series wouldn't be on USMC's wishlist, although I suppose it's currently inventoried by USAF only anyways.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 02:13
by geogen
hb_pencil wrote:For the most part 4 will be a software update that enables more of the physical capabilities and functions already present in the aircraft.

Also, are you sure that JSOW can't be carried? I haven't seen anything to suggest that it had been moved to block 4... though I could be wrong.


No doubt actual delivered products might see a series of changed goal posts compared to original specs/ord by the time the actual mature block 3/4 air vehicles achieve IOC.

For instance, the Norway docs from 2007 advertise and estimate that Block 4 (2022?) will include expanded munitions integration to include JSOW, AIM-9x II, SDB II and JSM.

Furthermore, Auto-GCAS is supposed to be upgraded into the block 4, as is Drag chute option, an ICP upgrade, an expanded Wideband COM infrastructure, increased Airframe Life Expectancy and improved thermal management.

Critical combat and operational software enhancements and updates in block 4 are expected to be substantial to include Sensor integration, SAR templates, moving targets ID, streaming video/IR pointer, crypto upgrades, VMF updates and multi-ship route planner.

Call it 2023 IOC to be conservative for a 5th gen block 4 and call it a day.

Block 5 (2026?) should see IRST, 6x internal AMRAAM, maritime upgrades, wideband COM integration, advanced threats response and cooperative EW.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 02:17
by lookieloo
cantaz wrote:Wait, based on that presentation from the 2012 Precision Strike Annual Review, the B and C aren't slated for any SDB integration out to Block 3F?
I don't think any variants are carrying SDB until 3F.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 02:27
by XanderCrews
lookieloo wrote:]At this point, SE is more "paper" than the F-35.


Yep. Boeing is not unhappy that the F-35 is a paper tiger theyre just unhappy because its not their paper tiger.


Muilenburg do have a good point, about this..
Nice to read something that isn't completly Biased and full of halftruth for a change..


Sorry, its yet another half truth--- its limited frontal profile against air radars.

The company classifies the F-15SE as a “fifth-generation” because it has a lower air-based RCS than a standard F-15 or F-15E, but the new design is not an all-aspect stealthy aircraft. Ground radar will readily detect the Silent Eagle despite its profile improvements.


http://www.tactical-life.com/magazines/ ... ent-eagle/

Sorry, its yet another half truth.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 04:11
by weasel1962
lookieloo wrote:
cantaz wrote:Wait, based on that presentation from the 2012 Precision Strike Annual Review, the B and C aren't slated for any SDB integration out to Block 3F?
I don't think any variants are carrying SDB until 3F.


3F should include SDB-1 assuming Boeing cooperates. SDB-II timeline based on SAR is Sep 2020 for F-35 and Jul 2016 for F-15E. In both SDB-I (A) and II (B/C) cases, the timeline applies for specific variants but I think it would logcally be transferable across the variants.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 04:46
by lookieloo
weasel1962 wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
cantaz wrote:Wait, based on that presentation from the 2012 Precision Strike Annual Review, the B and C aren't slated for any SDB integration out to Block 3F?
I don't think any variants are carrying SDB until 3F.
3F should include SDB-1 assuming Boeing cooperates. SDB-II timeline based on SAR is Sep 2020 for F-35 and Jul 2016 for F-15E. In both SDB-I (A) and II (B/C) cases, the timeline applies for specific variants but I think it would logcally be transferable across the variants.
Gotta hand it to Boeing in this regard. They're very good at quickly integrating new weapons into their platforms with minimal cost and fuss. Of course, that may be due to being somewhat under the radar compared to higher-profile programs that generate more exposure for the monitoring agencies involved. Why bother nagging about F-15E/SDB-II integration when you can look more important handing down edicts/opinions about how the same weapon fits into the JSF's architecture?

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 04:57
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Let's focus on the facts, not the person. ANAO had previously stated in Sep 2012 that Block 3 will be finalised in Feb 2019.

http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/Aud ... 2-2013/F35

The difference in timings appaears to be due to testing but the report does indicate that current performance are already close to ORD. Whether 2020 is far off from that date is a matter of subjectivity, however any acquisition before testing is complete is not risk free. That's assuming the date holds.

What Block 3F does not include in terms of weapons capability is JASSM, JSOW, SDB-II, GBU-54, JSM capability. That will likely be in block 4 or later. However, that can be retrofit. Nevertheless, any F-35 acquired before 2020 will not have those capabilities in that period until it is retrofitted after 2020. Retrofit will cost $. With the exception of the JSM and SDB-II which are not in production, the F-15K is capable of using those munitions up to 2020. How significant a capability gap to Korean defence is really a matter of Korean perception. Boeing will say the gap is the grand canyon, LM will claim its a 2 inch hole. At the same time, LM will argue F-35 acquisition before 2020 will still confer a stealth aircraft.


Don't see the issue really. As even if South Korea ordered the F-35A (Block 3F) tomorrow. That doesn't mean she wouldn't upgrade the aircraft to Block 4 or later as soon it was available. Which, would likely be negotiated before any contract was ever signed.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 05:47
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:Don't see the issue really. As even if South Korea ordered the F-35A (Block 3F) tomorrow. That doesn't mean she wouldn't upgrade the aircraft to Block 4 or later as soon it was available. Which, would likely be negotiated before any contract was ever signed.


That's LM's line and hook. Anyone can get a Blk 1 and upgrade to a Blk 4 eventually. There will even be a Blk 5, 6, 7 upgrade...Some airforces do that, others consider the implication of a capability gap e.g. Australia. RAAF could have F-35s by now which can be converted to Blk 2B today. Why bother with Super Hornets? F-35s sent for upgrading = period not in service = lower availability. Not even the US with its almighty budget can afford to upgrade ALL its fighters to the latest standard (seen the F-16 fleet lately?) immediately. That's not how it works in real life.

The capability gap argument is a real one. Getting F-15Ks now and F-35s post-2020 at MYP rates is more or less cost-effective compared to F-35s now at LRIP rates + upgrade cost and suffer a capability gap, or 3rd option, delay acquisition and buy F-35s later? That is the issue that is being decided in KFX-III and is unlikely to be influenced by us (meaning "we") pundits, no pun intended. 60 aircraft is not a small proportion of the ROKAF.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 07:40
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Don't see the issue really. As even if South Korea ordered the F-35A (Block 3F) tomorrow. That doesn't mean she wouldn't upgrade the aircraft to Block 4 or later as soon it was available. Which, would likely be negotiated before any contract was ever signed.


That's LM's line and hook. Anyone can get a Blk 1 and upgrade to a Blk 4 eventually. There will even be a Blk 5, 6, 7 upgrade...Some airforces do that, others consider the implication of a capability gap e.g. Australia. RAAF could have F-35s by now which can be converted to Blk 2B today. Why bother with Super Hornets? F-35s sent for upgrading = period not in service = lower availability. Not even the US with its almighty budget can afford to upgrade ALL its fighters to the latest standard (seen the F-16 fleet lately?) immediately. That's not how it works in real life.

The capability gap argument is a real one. Getting F-15Ks now and F-35s post-2020 at MYP rates is more or less cost-effective compared to F-35s now at LRIP rates + upgrade cost and suffer a capability gap, or 3rd option, delay acquisition and buy F-35s later? That is the issue that is being decided in KFX-III and is unlikely to be influenced by us (meaning "we") pundits, no pun intended. 60 aircraft is not a small proportion of the ROKAF.


That is not Lockheed Martins Line. The US Government was the one that decided this whole process of buying now and upgrading later. Nonetheless, my point is obvious or at least I thought it was. That is South Korea could get early block F-35A's. Which, are still more capable in many respect to the F-15SE. Then later they come upgrade them to a higher standard. As the capabilities became available......

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 10:13
by weasel1962
...and top management representatives of the air force of that same government who made the decision also came to say on hindsight, it was very costly to adopt the early block approach (the word "mistake" was used on occasion but that's subjective).

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2013, 04:00
by popcorn
Refuting the Fogleman/Muilenburg FUD in recent days..

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL ... 8?irpc=932

S.Korea would get F-35s with full combat capability -Pentagon

WASHINGTON, Nov 7 (Reuters) - If South Korea decides to order Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets for delivery in 2017, the aircraft would come with the software needed to carry a full load of weapons, Lockheed and the Pentagon's F-35 program office said Thursday, refuting a claim made earlier this week by a Boeing consultant.

South Korea is expected to confirm in coming weeks that it needs radar-evading capabilities such as those offered by the F-35, after an acquisition task force last month rejected a bid to buy Boeing Co's F-15.

Boeing and its supporters are now pressing for a split buy of Boeing F-15s and Lockheed F-35s, arguing that South Korea would need the greater weapons-carrying capacity of the Boeing planes to counter a possible North Korean threat.

They say the F-15 is a proven aircraft that can carry more weapons at high speeds and over longer distances than the F-35, which could be critical in a war with the North.

Ron Fogleman, who served as U.S. Air Force chief of staff from 1994 to 1997 and now works as a consultant for Boeing, told reporters on Monday that delays in the development of the F-35 software meant Boeing's F-15 would be able to carry more weapons when South Korea starts to retire its current F-4 and F-5 fighters in 2016 and 2017.

But officials with Lockheed and the F-35 program office told Reuters the 3F software would be released to the F-35 fleet in the third quarter of 2017. That would allow the jet to achieve its full combat capability and carry a full load of weapons in time for the delivery schedule that South Korea is seeking, they said.

Lockheed planned an initial release of the 3F software for developmental flight testing in September 2014, said company spokesman Eric Schnaible.

South Korea has said it needs delivery of the first new fighter jets in 2017 so it can start replacing its aging current fleet of warplanes. To ensure delivery in 2017, Seoul would have to place initial orders of F-35 jets in the ninth batch of jets, which is expected to carry the 3F software.

"If (the South Koreans) decide to procure F-35s, then aircraft ordered in lot 9 or later will be configured with 3F software," said Rear Admiral Randy Mahr, deputy F-35 program manager, in a statement responding to a Reuters query.

More at the link.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2013, 04:17
by popcorn
Refuting the Fogleman/Muilenburg FUD in recent days..

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL ... 8?irpc=932

S.Korea would get F-35s with full combat capability -Pentagon

WASHINGTON, Nov 7 (Reuters) - If South Korea decides to order Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets for delivery in 2017, the aircraft would come with the software needed to carry a full load of weapons, Lockheed and the Pentagon's F-35 program office said Thursday, refuting a claim made earlier this week by a Boeing consultant.

South Korea is expected to confirm in coming weeks that it needs radar-evading capabilities such as those offered by the F-35, after an acquisition task force last month rejected a bid to buy Boeing Co's F-15.

Boeing and its supporters are now pressing for a split buy of Boeing F-15s and Lockheed F-35s, arguing that South Korea would need the greater weapons-carrying capacity of the Boeing planes to counter a possible North Korean threat.

They say the F-15 is a proven aircraft that can carry more weapons at high speeds and over longer distances than the F-35, which could be critical in a war with the North.

Ron Fogleman, who served as U.S. Air Force chief of staff from 1994 to 1997 and now works as a consultant for Boeing, told reporters on Monday that delays in the development of the F-35 software meant Boeing's F-15 would be able to carry more weapons when South Korea starts to retire its current F-4 and F-5 fighters in 2016 and 2017.

But officials with Lockheed and the F-35 program office told Reuters the 3F software would be released to the F-35 fleet in the third quarter of 2017. That would allow the jet to achieve its full combat capability and carry a full load of weapons in time for the delivery schedule that South Korea is seeking, they said.

Lockheed planned an initial release of the 3F software for developmental flight testing in September 2014, said company spokesman Eric Schnaible.

South Korea has said it needs delivery of the first new fighter jets in 2017 so it can start replacing its aging current fleet of warplanes. To ensure delivery in 2017, Seoul would have to place initial orders of F-35 jets in the ninth batch of jets, which is expected to carry the 3F software.

"If (the South Koreans) decide to procure F-35s, then aircraft ordered in lot 9 or later will be configured with 3F software," said Rear Admiral Randy Mahr, deputy F-35 program manager, in a statement responding to a Reuters query.

More at the link.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2013, 16:41
by SpudmanWP
I think we have a new record... 17 minutes between double posts ;)

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2013, 23:23
by maus92
In defense of the Boeing rep, the F-15 can carry more, and a wider selection of weapons than the SDD set enabled by 3F.

Planned Block 2 weapons:
GBU-31 JDAM (BLU-109 warhead)
GBU-12 Paveway (internal carry)
GBU-32 JDAM (Mk82/BLU-110 warhesd) [-B model only}
AIM-120

Planned Block 3 weapons:
AIM-9X
GBU-31 JDAM (Mk84 warhead)
GBU-39 (SDB-1) [-A model only]
GBU-12 Paveway (external carry)
GBU-32 JDAM (BLU-110 warhesd) [-C model]
AGM-154A/C JSOW [-C model only]

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012annual_psr/WERTH.pdf

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2013, 23:53
by quicksilver
maus92 wrote:In defense of the Boeing rep, the F-15 can carry more, and a wider selections of weapons than the SDD set enabled by 3F.

Planned Block 2 weapons:
GBU-31 JDAM (BLU-109 warhead)
GBU-12 Paveway (internal carry)
GBU-32 JDAM (Mk82/BLU-110 warhesd) [-B model only}
AIM-120

Planned Block 3 weapons:
AIM-9X
GBU-31 JDAM (Mk84 warhead)
GBU-39 (SDB-1) [-A model only]
GBU-12 Paveway (external carry)
GBU-32 JDAM (BLU-110 warhesd) [-C model]
AGM-154A/C JSOW [-C model only]

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012annual_psr/WERTH.pdf


Well duh...what jet has ever IOCd with the full array of planned weapons and capability? IIRC, Hornet IOCd with Mk 82 and the gun, F-16 similar.

And what will that Eagle look like in 2022 when F-35 is at Blk 4 or beyond? (Ans: a flaming wreck of a target).

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2013, 07:24
by weasel1962
In 2022, I doubt if there's anything in the North Korean arsenal that could seriously threaten an F-15K. The bulk of the PLAAF/PLAN will still comprise J-10s and J-1X series aircraft. Unless Korea is planning on attacking Japan, I think its fighter envy that would drive that consideration. By 2020, Korea could be embarking on its next fighter comp. Then a Blk 4/5 F-35 should be a shoo-in.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2013, 18:36
by XanderCrews
weasel1962 wrote:In 2022, I doubt if there's anything in the North Korean arsenal that could seriously threaten an F-15K. The bulk of the PLAAF/PLAN will still comprise J-10s and J-1X series aircraft.


Its not the enemy aircraft that should be feared. which is another reason the F-15SE with its reduced frontal aspect for A2A radars is practically worthless in South Korea's case.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2013, 23:22
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:In 2022, I doubt if there's anything in the North Korean arsenal that could seriously threaten an F-15K. The bulk of the PLAAF/PLAN will still comprise J-10s and J-1X series aircraft.
Its not the enemy aircraft that should be feared. which is another reason the F-15SE with its reduced frontal aspect for A2A radars is practically worthless in South Korea's case.
I just love the assumption that someone is overspending unless they fight fair with the enemy.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2013, 02:50
by spazsinbad
Lockheed-Martin Now Sole Candidate in Fighter Project englishnews@chosun.com / Nov. 11, 2013
"Lockheed Martin's F-35 is emerging as the sole qualified candidate as Korea's search for a new-generation fighter jet starts all over again.

The Defense Ministry in September decided against Boeing's F-15SE because of its unsatisfactory stealth capability.

The next-generation fighter project is worth W8.3 trillion (US$1=W1,065).

"The Air Force has recently revised requirements for the F-X project and recommended them to the Joint Chiefs of Staff," a government source said. "The Air Force set more stringent requirements for the stealth capability and electronics like the radar cross-section," a measure of how detectable an object is with radar.

That would also rule out EADS' Eurofighter Typhoon, the third in the previous round, because it fails to meet these requirements.

The ministry is expected to discuss the Air Force's recommendation at a meeting of Joint Chiefs of Staff commanders. Early next month, it will then submit the recommendation to a committee chaired by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin to sign a straightforward contract for the F-35 rather than putting the project out to tender again.

But some military leaders are worried because there is no precedent for a contract without tender for a huge arms procurement project worth more than W8 trillion. They are also concerned about delays because the F-35 is still not fully developed. Some are suggesting buying a mix of 40 F-35s and 20 improved F-15s or Typhoons."

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/htm ... 00777.html

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2013, 03:51
by weasel1962
lookieloo wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:In 2022, I doubt if there's anything in the North Korean arsenal that could seriously threaten an F-15K. The bulk of the PLAAF/PLAN will still comprise J-10s and J-1X series aircraft.
Its not the enemy aircraft that should be feared. which is another reason the F-15SE with its reduced frontal aspect for A2A radars is practically worthless in South Korea's case.
I just love the assumption that someone is overspending unless they fight fair with the enemy.


The sticker price isn't the sole argument in this case. The F-15 carries more munitions than the F-35. Why pay more to get less needed capability or is the prevalent view that more ground attack capability isn't required?

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2013, 04:36
by spazsinbad
Huh? I think it is clear the S.K.s require stealth? Or are you saying something else 'weasel1962'?

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2013, 05:22
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Huh? I think it is clear the S.K.s require stealth? Or are you saying something else 'weasel1962'?
Weasel apparently thinks F-15s fly around like this in wartime.

Image

And in case he hasn't heard, the F-35 can carry its own sizable external load when *stealth* isn't necessary... crap, I forgot that's what the Koreans want... but if that's the case, the F-15SE carries less internally than the F-35, so why the hell was SE even considered? God... my head hurts. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2013, 06:16
by XanderCrews
weasel1962 wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:In 2022, I doubt if there's anything in the North Korean arsenal that could seriously threaten an F-15K. The bulk of the PLAAF/PLAN will still comprise J-10s and J-1X series aircraft.
Its not the enemy aircraft that should be feared. which is another reason the F-15SE with its reduced frontal aspect for A2A radars is practically worthless in South Korea's case.
I just love the assumption that someone is overspending unless they fight fair with the enemy.


The sticker price isn't the sole argument in this case. The F-15 carries more munitions than the F-35. Why pay more to get less needed capability or is the prevalent view that more ground attack capability isn't required?


Is it strange to say that you shouldn't confuse the F-15s ability to carry more munitions with it having more capability? I think it has the capability to carry more munitions.

"Ground attack capability" isn't just the ability to sling bombs, or else we could sell the RoKAF some B-29s. Its the ability to get to the dangerous areas, to deploy the ordnance, and return home. You seem to be confusing the amount of bombs an F-15 can carry with its ability to effectively deploy them. If an F-15 can't get within range to deploy its weapons it really doesn't matter whether its not dropping 2 or 20.

I remember when one of the Harrier Squadron CO's got pissed that the AV-8s weren't carrying enough bombs, the Ordies proceeded to load one for bear to the point it could never hope to take off and then tow it by his office every 15 minutes until he was satisfied they were flying with "enough bombs".

I'm glad you brought up the phrase "sticker price" as well. the Koreans trying to maintain a small and unique fleet of F-15SEs could see seriously expensive maintenance expenses that quickly catch up to the "savings" they earned from passing on the F-35., so again the sticker price isn't the whole story, and last I checked the F-35 CPFH estimates were below an F-15E, let alone an F-15K. and certainly the even more costly F-15SE.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2013, 02:37
by weasel1962
XanderCrews wrote:Is it strange to say that you shouldn't confuse the F-15s ability to carry more munitions with it having more capability? I think it has the capability to carry more munitions.


Totally agreed, except in the current context, why can't the F-15K carry out its mission? Its a round circle argument that goes back to the original FX-1 and 2 and prior F-16 acquisitions. The F-15K won't need to go into NK territory cos it carries munitions that can traverse the entire length of the NK country. The current doctrine would in any case involve clearing a anti-radar path for penetration (even with F-35s). Both F-35 and F-15 will remain at risk below 20k ft from AAA. There's little in the current aggresor inventory that would surprise either aircraft above 20k ft. What fighters are there in potential aggressor inventory that the F-15 can't handle?

Now some might argue that China has S-300/HQ-9 series SAMs that would pose a higher risk to the F-15K. That's underestimating the SEAD capability of the ROKAF. Not saying that the F-35 isn't a better aircraft. Its just that objectively, no one has really made a case why the F-15 is so inadequate that it does not deserve to be considered to bridge a possible capability gap. That dynamic could change in 6 years but we're talking an acquisition in 2014 not 2020. Stealth capability is good but doesn't mean that an air force without stealth is totally useless today. The bulk of the USAF/USN/USMC are still non-stealthy.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2013, 15:09
by cantaz
Might this not be about enabling capabilities rather than simple striking power? I'm not sure how close an aircraft would have to get to map the thousands of hardened/concealed NK artillery positions along the DMZ with AESA, but if a F-35 can get within EODAS range it should be able to location a lot more positions given the EODAS' wider field of view vis-a-vis AESA. Plus the F-35 would be better at distributing that information than the F-15.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2013, 15:23
by bigjku
cantaz wrote:Might this not be about enabling capabilities rather than simple striking power? I'm not sure how close an aircraft would have to get to map the thousands of hardened/concealed NK artillery positions along the DMZ with AESA, but if a F-35 can get within EODAS range it should be able to location a lot more positions given the EODAS' wider field of view vis-a-vis AESA. Plus the F-35 would be better at distributing that information than the F-15.


I think it is far simpler than that.

Neither option is cheap. There is simply no point in investing what is still a huge pile of money on aircraft that are less capable, particularly if you still plan to move to the F-35 at some point in the future anyway (which I think SK clearly would). Buying another 60 F-15's makes no sense unless you think a war is about to kick off in the next couple of years or so. From a long term planning perspective it makes no sense and it is not shocking at all that they dumped what was a pretty stupid idea to begin with.

I would say the same thing about anyone suggesting nations replace F-16's or F-18's with Gripen (and to a fairly large extent with Eurofighter). There is simply no point and that is why you are seeing people pick the F-35. All options are expensive. Everything else is a warmed over version of what you could buy in the 1980's. Given the amount of money you are going to spend either way you might as well get the F-35 if you are eligible to do so.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2013, 20:06
by XanderCrews
Its just that objectively, no one has really made a case why the F-15 is so inadequate that it does not deserve to be considered to bridge a possible capability gap. That dynamic could change in 6 years but we're talking an acquisition in 2014 not 2020


because its not worth billions of dollars to bridge a 6 year gap. Also the F-15SE may be years away yet. If we are talking f-15K Korea already possesses them, and isnt going to get rid of them when the F-35 shows up. Its win-win. There is no need to buy more F-15Ks or F-15SEs. Its something they already possess.

Now I'm not an expert on South Korea, and I won't pretend to be (Thats slowman's job) But their thoughts may be that they feel the have a suffeicent amount of F-15s, And that getting the F-35 with its capablity that it might be more valuable hitting strategic targets in the North, and freeing up F-15Ks to hit the NorK army. Rather than having to use F-15s and F-16s to do SEAD to get to the northern targets.

Its really not an either or debate except to Boeing in the KFX competition. And if it is ROKAF has F-15s so why not F-35s this time?

Stealth capability is good but doesn't mean that an air force without stealth is totally useless today. The bulk of the USAF/USN/USMC are still non-stealthy.


And what are they buying and moving towards? What will they look like in 10 years? Thats the problem with "today" its a small temporary window that doesn't tell the same story. IF the JSF wasn't delayed "Today" the USAF/USN/USMC would be fielding large fleets of F-35s. Its not like they don't have them because they don't feel they need them. They need them and they know it.

Today is a tricky and very small measurement of time. Today my wife is 7 months pregnant, but since I don't have any kids I'm going to spend $30,000 on a new truck instead of saving it. This will not all come back to bite me in 2 months. But Today no kids!! What about 2 months? 2 years? 2 decades?

Make no mistake the US is fighting against obsolescence. The warplanes it has now are largely from older eras and and over 25 years old. They are serivicable aircraft leftover from the cold war and pressed into continued service with upgrades

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2013, 00:21
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:In 2022, I doubt if there's anything in the North Korean arsenal that could seriously threaten an F-15K. The bulk of the PLAAF/PLAN will still comprise J-10s and J-1X series aircraft.
Its not the enemy aircraft that should be feared. which is another reason the F-15SE with its reduced frontal aspect for A2A radars is practically worthless in South Korea's case.
I just love the assumption that someone is overspending unless they fight fair with the enemy.


The sticker price isn't the sole argument in this case. The F-15 carries more munitions than the F-35. Why pay more to get less needed capability or is the prevalent view that more ground attack capability isn't required?


They would pay more for F-15s, than FRP F-35s, and once BLK4 and beyond occurs, the variety of weapons becomes a moot point.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2013, 14:41
by popcorn
What is UAC smoking? LOL..

http://www.janes.com/article/29936/russ ... outh-korea

Russia renews PAK-FA overtures to South Korea

India's decision to reduce the number of Sukhoi Perspektivniy Aviatsonnoi Kompleks-Frontovoi Aviatsii (PAK-FA) T-50 fifth-generation fighters it is procuring has led Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) to search for new markets for the aircraft.

This may include the Republic of Korea Air Force (RoKAF), which failed to select an aircraft for its FX-III requirement in September after turning down the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle concept after it had been shortlisted by Seoul's procurement agency. The Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter also competed.

South Korean government and defence industry officials at the Seoul Aerospace and Defence Exhibition (ADEX 2013) in late October confirmed that the F-15's lack of stealth relative to fifth-generation fighters such as the F-35 - and PAK-FA - was a key reason for the decision.

Russia's Rosoboronexport, the state arms export monopoly, first offered the PAK-FA aircraft to South Korea in 2011. The Russian arms exporter recently returned to Seoul with a new, unsolicited offer.

"Russia has come back into the South Korean competition because they believe they see an opening if there would be a 'split buy' by the RoKAF," said a US industry source involved in the FX-III bidding.

"This would mean the RoKAF would procure some number of an aircraft that is available now, like the Advanced F-15 variant that had been originally selected in the competition, and a fifth-generation stealthy aeroplane later, but only once the design of that second aircraft was a proven, in-service platform," the official added. "Because it's Korea you can never be certain - even after a procurement decision has supposedly been taken."...

MORE....

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2013, 19:04
by spazsinbad
Quote from above:
"...The Russian arms exporter recently returned to Seoul with a new, unsolicited offer...."

Much ado about nothing methinks.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2013, 01:44
by spazsinbad
Military chiefs to back South Korean F-35 deal 15 Nov 2013 Edd Gent
"Two sources familiar with the competition said today, that the country’s Joint Chiefs of Staff are expected to back an "all F-35 buy" of 40 F-35s and an option for 20 more at a meeting on November 22, dashing Boeing’s hopes of selling Seoul at least some F-15 fighters as a hedge against delays in the F-35 program, which is currently completing development.

The South Korean government voted down a bid by Boeing to supply 60 F-15 Silent Eagle’s in September, even though it was the only one of three bids submitted that was under budget.

At the time, South Korean officials said they would restart the 8.3tn won (£4.9bn) tender process to get a more advanced, radar-evading jet, but Boeing and its supporters had hoped the government would opt for a split buy of F-35s and F-15s.

"Clearly the US will be pleased with this direction," said one of the sources. "By committing to accept early production planes, (South) Korea will help bring down the price for early production aircraft purchased by the United States, Japan and others."

The Joint Chiefs' decision must be approved by a committee chaired by the South Korean defence minister at a meeting in early December, according to the sources, who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

One source said South Korea was sticking to its initial plan to buy 60 jets to preserve the terms of an industrial offset package that accompanied the Lockheed offer and included a satellite to be launched and placed in orbit. Any changes in the number of planes ordered would require reopening negotiations with Lockheed, said the source.

The South Korean Air Force has asked for enhanced stealth capability for the fighter jets, a move seen as bolstering the F-35's chances ahead of the Joint Chiefs meeting.

US officials have said Seoul needs to make a decision by the end of the year to ensure delivery of initial F-35s in 2017 since the US government must order advanced materials for the planes in the coming weeks. Seoul is said to be looking at buying six F-35 fighters in the ninth batch of early production jets.

The Eurofighter consortium, which includes BAE Systems, EADS and Finmeccanica, also submitted a bid in the South Korean competition.

The sources said there was still a chance the committee that is chaired by the South Korean defence minister could reverse the expected Joint Chiefs decision, but that was seen as unlikely."

http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/nov/k ... 5-deal.cfm

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2013, 21:05
by spazsinbad
More or less the same report as immediately above but worth noting....

S. Korea Joint Chiefs set to back deal for 40 Lockheed F-35s -sources 15 Nov 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"Nov 15 (Reuters) - South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff were expected to endorse an "all F-35 buy" of 40 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets and an option for 20 more at a meeting on Nov. 22, two sources familiar with the competition said on Friday...."

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/11/1 ... JQ20131115

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 02:57
by weasel1962
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... y-Buy-F-35

So instead of 60 F-15SEs, the ROKAF is going to get 40 F-35As representing a more than 50% drop in payload delivery capability. That's for the equivalent upfront cost. On the operational cost, I would think 40 F-35As should be cheaper to maintain than 60 F-15SEs.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 05:13
by archeman
weasel1962 wrote:http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131121/DEFREG03/311210011/Source-South-Korea-Will-Likely-Buy-F-35

So instead of 60 F-15SEs, the ROKAF is going to get 40 F-35As representing a more than 50% drop in payload delivery capability. That's for the equivalent upfront cost. On the operational cost, I would think 40 F-35As should be cheaper to maintain than 60 F-15SEs.


The 50% payload delivery drop capability that you quote is only true if the combat attrition rates for both maintain the same 3/2 ratio.
GIven the significant signature differences of the two aircraft for both day 1 and in the weeks following, the attrition rate would hurt the KF-15 overall payload delivery and restrict the target options more than the F-35.

So initially with the KF-15 you could deliver more payload, but not to the targets where you would like to deliver, and the payload advantage would not last very long.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 05:48
by lamoey
archeman wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131121/DEFREG03/311210011/Source-South-Korea-Will-Likely-Buy-F-35

So instead of 60 F-15SEs, the ROKAF is going to get 40 F-35As representing a more than 50% drop in payload delivery capability. That's for the equivalent upfront cost. On the operational cost, I would think 40 F-35As should be cheaper to maintain than 60 F-15SEs.


The 50% payload delivery drop capability that you quote is only true if the combat attrition rates for both maintain the same 3/2 ratio.
GIven the significant signature differences of the two aircraft for both day 1 and in the weeks following, the attrition rate would hurt the KF-15 overall payload delivery and restrict the target options more than the F-35.

So initially with the KF-15 you could deliver more payload, but not to the targets where you would like to deliver, and the payload advantage would not last very long.


I concur. It is not a question of how much can be carried, but how much can reach the intended target.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 08:00
by coldman
lamoey wrote:
archeman wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131121/DEFREG03/311210011/Source-South-Korea-Will-Likely-Buy-F-35

So instead of 60 F-15SEs, the ROKAF is going to get 40 F-35As representing a more than 50% drop in payload delivery capability. That's for the equivalent upfront cost. On the operational cost, I would think 40 F-35As should be cheaper to maintain than 60 F-15SEs.


The 50% payload delivery drop capability that you quote is only true if the combat attrition rates for both maintain the same 3/2 ratio.
GIven the significant signature differences of the two aircraft for both day 1 and in the weeks following, the attrition rate would hurt the KF-15 overall payload delivery and restrict the target options more than the F-35.

So initially with the KF-15 you could deliver more payload, but not to the targets where you would like to deliver, and the payload advantage would not last very long.


I concur. It is not a question of how much can be carried, but how much can reach the intended target.

Agreed, it doesn't matter if you carry one bomb or a million. Your payload means nothing unless you have the ability to deploy it over your intended target.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 08:02
by joost
Decision made by MoD! :D We have a new F-35 user. As I recall this will decision will be affirmed in december by the government.

S. Korea decides to buy 40 Lockheed F-35s from 2018


By Kim Eun-jung

SEOUL, Nov. 22 (Yonhap) -- South Korea decided Friday to purchase 40 Lockheed Martin's F-35A stealth fighters for four years starting in 2018, with an option to buy 20 more later depending on the security situation and budget, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said.

JCS Chairman Choi Yun-hee held a meeting of top commanders to approve the plan to buy the 40 F-35 Block 3s, which are capable of conducting air-to-air and air-to-ground missions with internal carriage and external stations for missiles and bombs. The software configuration is expected to reach the initial operating capability around 2015, according to the company.

As the F-35 is sold only through the U.S. foreign military sales (FMS) program, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) is expected to purchase the aircraft through a government-to-government deal and without an open bid.

The government-to-government FMS condition requires a foreign government to pay the amount specified by the U.S. government for the F-35s at the time of payment.

The move comes as the Air Force had asked the government to buy the combat aircraft with a lower radar cross section, one of the key stealth functions, and advanced avionic warfare capabilities.

"The F-35A will be used as a strategic weapon to gain a competitive edge and defeat the enemy in the early stage of war," the JCS said. "The South Korean military will also use the aircraft to effectively deal with provocations."

The purchase plan has been scaled back from the previous one that called for buying 60 aircraft worth 8.3 trillion won (US$7.2 billion). Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle was the only bid within the budget for the past bidding, but it was voted down due to relatively weak stealth capabilities.

For an additional 20 jets, the South Korean government will reconsider the required operational capability and security situations with a goal of deployment between 2023 and 2024, giving Boeing and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EDAS), which participated in the past bidding, an opportunity to secure a contract.

Boeing earlier proposed a mixed purchase of F-15s and F-35s to minimize a security vacuum, while EADS highlighted an offset deal, including the transfer of technology and industrial participation for South Korea's indigenous fighter jet project in synergies between the aircraft procurement and development program.

The state arms procurement agency can extend the funding up to 120 percent of the total budget assigned for the past program, but such a decision needs approval from the finance ministry and the parliament. Assigning an increased budget for the costly fighter acquisition could also draw complaints from other military branches that are eager to upgrade their equipment.

Unlike the fierce competition for the past project, industry experts say the one-way bid gives Seoul less room to negotiate other conditions such as a technology transfer or industrial cooperation in connection with the program.

ejkim@yna.co.kr

(END)

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

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 08:46
by popcorn
[quote=joost]
For an additional 20 jets, the South Korean government will reconsider the required operational capability and security situations with a goal of deployment between 2023 and 2024, giving Boeing and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EDAS), which participated in the past bidding, an opportunity to secure a contract.
[/quote]

A split-order? Seriously? :D
:D

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 08:52
by weasel1962
The attrition rates sounds like a good argument except that in this real world, what capabilities do potential aggressors such as North Korea have to attrite the F-15SE at the 50+% more rates? AAA guns? SA2 & 3s?

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 12:06
by count_to_10
weasel1962 wrote:The attrition rates sounds like a good argument except that in this real world, what capabilities do potential aggressors such as North Korea have to attrite the F-15SE at the 50+% more rates? AAA guns? SA2 & 3s?

It's not really about NK, it's about China (and, for some reason, Japan).

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 13:43
by popcorn
The F-35 has been deemed to best fit the South's new strategic defense doctrine which emphasizes a more proactive response to NK aggression. It's the best tool for the job going into the future.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world ... 910352.htm

"The required operational capability (ROC) for next- generational fighter jets was revised to prepare for realized nuclear and missile threats from North Korea (DPRK). The kill chain system requires a jet that can infiltrate secretly into and strike a target," Col. Eom Hyo-sik, JCS spokesman, told reporters at a briefing.

Eom said fighter jets with cutting-edge stealth functions and avionic warfare capability were needed to deter the DPRK's future provocations through firm retribution tools...

"High-performance stealth fighters are the core of the kill chain system to infiltrate secretly and strike a target effectively with a minimum of fighters," Brig. Shin Ik-hyun of the JCS strategy planning department told reporters.

The kill chain system refers to the Seoul-driven counterattack strategy, which preemptively detects and intercepts missiles and nuclear threats from Pyongyang. Seoul and Washington agreed in October to first strike the DPRK if signs of Pyongyang's nuclear attacks are detected...

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 19:07
by archeman
weasel1962 wrote:The attrition rates sounds like a good argument except that in this real world, what capabilities do potential aggressors such as North Korea have to attrite the F-15SE at the 50+% more rates? AAA guns? SA2 & 3s?


Yep, SA2s and SA3s. Telephone poles with wings.
Plus maybe a thousand or so local variants of SA15 and SA16.
Plus whatever Chinese 'volunteers' can rush in to maintain status quo.

Enough to make for a warm reception 'Downtown'.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 19:29
by gtx
Great news re the ROKAF F-35s (40 + 20). Now where is Slowman??? Anyone want to dig up an email to send him? :D

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 21:01
by steakanddoritos
gtx wrote:Great news re the ROKAF F-35s (40 + 20). Now where is Slowman??? Anyone want to dig up an email to send him? :D


He's having a meltdown over at AvWeek:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 639916.xml

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 21:16
by spazsinbad
Interesting quote from the AvWeak article above:
"...The great bulk of air force opinion has always seen the F-35 as the desirable aircraft, according to South Korean government officials,..."

What do they know? Is this the same as other Air Forces/Armed Forces selecting the F-35 above others? Who'da Thunk. :doh: :drool:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 22:40
by steakanddoritos
Slowman right now:
Image

But seriously, he is delusional. Still believing that Korea won't buy F-35's. His comments are insane.

Plot twist: Slowman is actually SNAFU Soloman!

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 23:26
by SpudmanWP
Be nice to SNAFU as he only recently became anti F-35 when he perceived it as a major driver behind the general drawdown of military force numbers and programs.

Besides, he is a good WoT player to platoon with :)

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2013, 23:45
by gtx
steakanddoritos wrote:
gtx wrote:Great news re the ROKAF F-35s (40 + 20). Now where is Slowman??? Anyone want to dig up an email to send him? :D


He's having a meltdown over at AvWeek:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 639916.xml


From the above:

There is no possibility of the 20 additional F-35s...


Talk about a fool! First it was "they won't ever since it was eliminated already". Then when they do order it becomes "but they won't order any more...". What's next? :D

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2013, 00:38
by steakanddoritos
gtx wrote:What's next?

Slowman: SK will order PAK-FA :bang:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2013, 02:01
by joost
So in case anyone wonders where the name silent eagle comes from...well, it will be silent forever :-)

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2013, 02:44
by steakanddoritos
joost wrote:So in case anyone wonders where the name silent eagle comes from...well, it will be silent forever :-)

Do we have any LockMart brand burn cream ready for Slowman?

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2013, 04:56
by delvo
popcorn wrote:http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-11/22/c_132910352.htm
Illustrated with a picture of an F-35B :roll:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2013, 05:21
by popcorn
delvo wrote:
popcorn wrote:http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-11/22/c_132910352.htm
Illustrated with a picture of an F-35B :roll:

It's a trial balloon, a signal that SK is serious about reports it will be building 2 light carriers equipped with STOVL strikefighters. :mrgreen:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2013, 06:47
by lookieloo
gtx wrote:Great news re the ROKAF F-35s (40 + 20). Now where is Slowman??? Anyone want to dig up an email to send him? :D
Uh... I still remember what happened the last time everyone was ready to "rub it" is Slowman's face. viewtopic.php?f=58&t=19506&p=253916#p253916 (<<<read the comments above mine)

He's completely departed from reality over at EADS Weely; but after watching the Koreans these past few months, I'm not gonna celebrate until they sign the check.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2013, 07:36
by spazsinbad
'slowman' is just another name on the internet babbleboard - as we all are. Do not worry / care about any one voice. As 'lookieloo' suggests, care about what South Korea does, if that is important to you. It ain't over 'til it is over - as the saying goes. However it seems powerful influential voices have steered SK to the F-35. I am imagining that the briefings were convincing enough from all the teams to have the F-35 selected overwhelmingly. Given the history of the competition so far though, it seems the fat lady has not sung yet. :shock:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2013, 15:12
by count_to_10
So isn't it the case that the longer this thing drags on, the cheaper the F-35 will be (because it would be from later lots)?

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2013, 17:35
by SpudmanWP
Because they are ordering their first batch in 2018 (or so it seems) they are already going to be much cheaper than if they had gone with the plan of first delivery in 2017.

If it is just a one year delay in first delivery then they will be saving some.

The WSC difference from a 2015 to a 2016 jet (order date with a two year delivery date) is $14mil (due to 47% increase in production from 30 to 44).
The WSC difference from a 2016 to a 2017 jet (order date with a two year delivery date) is $8.5mil (due to 10% increase in production from 44 to 48).
The WSC difference from a 2017 to a 2018 jet (order date with a two year delivery date) is $13mil (due to 25% increase in production from 48 to 60).

If this a 1 year delay then they will save $14mil on the first set of jets and if they wait 3 then they will save $35mil.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2013, 20:42
by lookieloo
count_to_10 wrote:So isn't it the case that the longer this thing drags on, the cheaper the F-35 will be (because it would be from later lots)?
If you'll recall, that was one of the rubs with F-35 in the first place. Those F-4s and F-5s need to be replaced sooner rather than later, meaning they'll have to pay more than they'd like.

@Spud... some of those planes are probably going to drop-off due to sequestration (4-5 per year). Of course, a Korean order more than makes up for that, continuing the drop in price, even if not so quickly as I'd like.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2013, 20:54
by XanderCrews
SpudmanWP wrote:Be nice to SNAFU as he only recently became anti F-35 when he perceived it as a major driver behind the general drawdown of military force numbers and programs.


Which is of course utter bullshit. hence the word perception and thus making him a total idiot in the field he claims to be an expert in, plus a complete lack of basic research, and running a lot of good names (some of whom I served with) through the mud in the meantime. Moreover he talks a mean game but seems to have the sensitivity of a 6 year old girl, and makes sure to cherry pick stories and articles and comments to conform to his thoughts. which is probably why his perception doesn't meet reality.

He deliberately buries his head deeper in the sand while refusing to listen to and insulting those trying to pull him out of it

None of these traits (delusional, ignorant, loud mouthed, tin earred, easily deceived, two faced, and disloyal to his fellow marines) are flattering. any 3 of those would be enough to ensure I want to have nothing to do with that person, and that's only the half of it. I wish he would quit calling himself a Marine, and then saying such retarded comments. Sometimes I cant even tell if its satire, or someone in the air force is having a fun time which would explain why he comes off as a poser.

Besides, he is a good WoT player to platoon with :)


I don't doubt that at all as he seems to have the mind of a petulant 16 year old, and appears to have plenty of time to practice while the rest of us are busy being Marines.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2013, 08:28
by weasel1962
If DiD is to be believed, then the whole issue of alternative aircraft is now moot as F-35A will now be sole aircraft for consideration in FXIII.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ko ... -on-02966/

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2013, 09:44
by spazsinbad
I'm falling off my chair about New Zealand?! WOT?! :doh: :drool:

S Korea order would drive F-35 per-plane cost lower 27 Nov 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"WASHINGTON - South Korea's plan to buy 40 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets will save the US military about $2 billion (S$ 2.5 billion) by driving down the per-plane price of the new plane, and could create up to 10,000 US jobs, according to sources familiar with the programme.

Seoul's decision will also help to offset any move by the US Air Force and Navy to deal with mandatory budget cuts by postponing orders for up to 54 jets over the next five years, according to analysts. Seoul's decision must still be approved by a committee chaired by its defence minister.

Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, said the South Korean news would provide a significant boost to the F-35 programme. "The sale of F-35s to Japan and South Korea - America's two leading industrial allies in northeast Asia means the F-35 is now becoming the gold standard for tactical aircraft across the western Pacific," he said.

He said Singapore would likely follow suit with its own orders, followed by Malaysia and possibly New Zealand...."

http://news.asiaone.com/news/world/s-ko ... cost-lower

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2013, 16:28
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:I'm falling off my chair about New Zealand?! WOT?! :doh: :drool:


Yeah man, haven't you heard? They are only days/months/decades away from ordering a fleet of F-35B's to operate off HMNZS Canterbury...

They've identified a niche they can contribute to that is currently missing in the RAN ORBAT!

:D

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2013, 20:10
by disconnectedradical
This Loren Thompson almost seems like a pro-F-35 counterpart of Carlo Kopp.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2013, 16:52
by maus92
disconnectedradical wrote:This Loren Thompson almost seems like a pro-F-35 counterpart of Carlo Kopp.


LM is one of his clients, and a major supporter of his think tank, The Lexington Institute. This fact is pretty much understood in industry and government circles, but not so much by the general public. When he writes for Forbes, he discloses his relationship with the companies he writes about - which is probably an ethics requirement imposed by the publishers of Forbes.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2013, 20:21
by quicksilver
maus92 wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:This Loren Thompson almost seems like a pro-F-35 counterpart of Carlo Kopp.


LM is one of his clients, and a major supporter of his think tank, The Lexington Institute. This fact is pretty much understood in industry and government circles, but not so much by the general public. When he writes for Forbes, he discloses his relationship with the companies he writes about - which is probably an ethics requirement imposed by the publishers of Forbes.


Loren gets paid by many (not just LM), just as many, many others do. Kinda the uncomfortable little secret that think tanks, commentators, bloggers, academics and others do not really want to talk about.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2013, 22:24
by spazsinbad
So is APA supported by the Barmy Army? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barmy_Army

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2013, 03:00
by spazsinbad
Korea to Pick Aerial Refueling Tanker by Next Year 28 Nov 2013
"Korea will pick an aerial refueling aircraft next year with a goal of deploying it by 2017. A Defense Ministry committee in a meeting on Wednesday approved the Defense Acquisition Program Administration's roadmap for the purchase....

..."Once we buy the refueling aircraft, we'll have a stronger deterrent against North Korea along with the F-35A stealth fighters and Global Hawk high-altitude, long-endurance drones," an Air Force officer said."

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/htm ... 01540.html

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2013, 15:22
by maus92
Eurofighter or F-15?
By Kang Seung-woo / Korea Times / Nov 28 2013

"Korea’s decision to buy only 40 F-35 Lightning IIs leaves Boeing and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) in competition to win a follow-up contract for 20 more aircraft...."

"Aviation analyst[s] say that a split-buy can make sense because there is still some uncertainty about the software development timeline of the Pentagon’s most expensive defense program ever.

“The split-buy is necessary for budgetary reasons, but I think it makes sense because we have yet to see an F-35 actually enter frontline service,” said James Hardy, Asia-Pacific editor of IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly.

“Given the Korean Air Force’s pending capability gap owing to the retirement of older types and the arrival of the F-35 in 2018, I feel the Eurofighter and F-15 are key contenders for the 20 aircraft requirement,” said Greg Waldron, Asia managing editor of FlightGlobal, an aviation and aerospace industry website..."

"Lee Hee-woo, president of the ILS Research Institute, said that Korea should have picked 20 aircraft that are able to be deployed immediately ahead of choosing 40 stealth jets.

“If I were the Air Force, I would select 20 non-stealth fighters first because it is in urgent need to bridge its structure gap with the F-4s about to retire,” he said.

“In terms of serving as an immediate threat, the Eurofighter has a better chance to get the contract for 20 additional aircraft.”

Richard Aboulafia, vice president of Teal Group, said that the F-15 would be a better choice.

“Buying another batch of F-15s would be a good way of hedging against possible F-35 program delays and of helping to bridge Korea’s fighter gap as the F-4 fleet retires,” he said..."

"“As the F-35 will be sold through the U.S. government’s foreign military sales (FMS) process, there are concerns that we will not be able to receive much of a technology transfer. So, Korea should also consider the F-X in tandem with the KF-X and the Eurofighter offers a better deal,” Lee said.

Waldron said: “Of the three contenders, the Eurofighter is likely to be the most open to technology transfer, but this must be weighed against the Typhoon’s lack of commonality with the rest of the Air Force fleet.”"

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 47020.html

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2013, 15:43
by maus92
Korean Lawmakers Want Tech Transfer, Local Assembly in F-35 Deal
Defenseworld.net / November 29, 2013

"Korean lawmakers are urging the government to renegotiate the purchase of 40 Lockheed Martin F-35A stealth fighters by including technology transfer and local assembly in US$7.2 billion deal.
"The government made the right decision in choosing the F-35A for its stealth capabilities, but compared to Japan, the conditions (for the purchase) are strikingly unfair," Rep. Rhee In-je, a six-term lawmaker of the ruling party, was quoted as saying by Yonhap News during a meeting of senior party lawmakers and Supreme Council members.

He also mentioned that unlike South Korea, which plans to buy all 40 jets as finished products, Japan plans to buy only four as finished products and assemble the remaining 38.
"This isn't an issue that can be glossed over. We must try to (buy the jets) on the condition of technology transfer, on the same terms as Japan, even if that means through further negotiations," Rhee said.
Last week, the Joint Chiefs of Staff announced that it would buy the 40 F-35 Block 3s over four years starting in 2018, with an option to buy 20 more later, depending on the security situation and the budget.

Korean lawmakers are urging the government to renegotiate the purchase of 40 Lockheed Martin F-35A stealth fighters by including technology transfer and local assembly in US$7.2 billion deal.

"The government made the right decision in choosing the F-35A for its stealth capabilities, but compared to Japan, the conditions (for the purchase) are strikingly unfair," Rep. Rhee In-je, a six-term lawmaker of the ruling party, was quoted as saying by Yonhap News during a meeting of senior party lawmakers and Supreme Council members.

He also mentioned that unlike South Korea, which plans to buy all 40 jets as finished products, Japan plans to buy only four as finished products and assemble the remaining 38.

"This isn't an issue that can be glossed over. We must try to (buy the jets) on the condition of technology transfer, on the same terms as Japan, even if that means through further negotiations," Rhee said."

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/9511/K ... pinc5G5hBV

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2013, 06:32
by popcorn
If the SOKORs want to follow in Japan's footsteps, they should be ready to pay the price to do so.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/AJ201308220031

Japan-made parts to push up price of F-35 fighter jets for ASDF

Two Japanese contractors will supply 24 components for the next-generation F-35 stealth fighters for the Air Self-Defense Force, which will push up the price by 50 percent, sources said.

The F-35 will be built mainly by Lockheed Martin Corp., with parts procured in the United States, Britain and other countries participating in the project. The aircraft will be assembled in the United States, Italy and Japan.

According to the sources, the U.S. government has authorized 24 components for the engine and radar system to be produced in Japan. The parts will account for about 10 percent of the aircraft's value.

Washington has said more Japanese-made parts may be incorporated, which would further push up the price.

MORE..

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2013, 06:14
by spazsinbad
No contest 02 Dec 2013 Murdo Morrison
"South Korea’s decision to obtain 40 Lockheed Martin F-35As brings a degree of closure to F-X III – one of the most hard-fought fighter competitions in recent years. Leaving the door open to a possible buy of 20 ­additional fighters, Seoul has even given a hint of a consolation prize for the contest’s losers, the Boeing F-15 and Eurofighter Typhoon. The deal is a happy ending for the South Korean air force, as it will get the stealth fighter it wanted all along. It also provides a major boost for Lockheed ­Martin, eager to lock in more customers for the F-35 and further drive down the programme’s unit costs. Following Japan’s order for 42 examples of the Joint Strike Fighter in 2011, the South Korean acquisition all but guarantees the stealthy type as the fighter of the ­future for the Asia Pacific’s regions big powers. ­Singapore, which possesses Southeast Asia’s best air force, is certain to order the type in the next few years, possibly taking a mixed buy of the conventional ­A-model and the short take-off vertical landing F-35B.

And although Australia flirted with a follow-on order of F/A-18F Super Hornets earlier this year – eventually opting for just 12 of the Growler electronic warfare variant – Canberra has never backed away from its plan to buy up to 100 F-35s. Its future orders for fighters are all likely to be with Lockheed Martin too.

When looked at from a historical perspective, Seoul’s F-35 decision could well mark the end of the great fighter competitions of the Asia-Pacific region. Aside from relatively minor requirements for combat aircraft among second-tier services, the major contests of recent years have been settled.

Asia-Pacific will, however, remain a vibrant arena for fighter upgrades. BAE Systems and Lockheed ­Martin are caught up in an intense duel to enhance the region’s F-16 fleets with new avionics. And Raytheon and Northrop Grumman will continue their no-holds-barred rivalry to sell active electronically scanned array radars for the region’s Fighting Falcons.

Nonetheless, history is, finally, on the side of Lockheed Martin’s occasionally troubled programme in the region. While fourth-generation types will continue to be potent platforms, it is impossible to escape the sense that these are the fighters of yesteryear in a new era where stealth is king.

The F-35 promises to be all fighters to all air forces. A risky bet indeed, but one that Asia-Pacific air forces seem willing to take."

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fligh ... 2/contest/

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2013, 07:51
by popcorn
Asia-Pacific appears to have sorted itself out solidly in the F-35 camp so focus now shifts to the Persian Gulf. No doubt the money is there and given their willingness to spend on the latest and the greatest, it makes the selling job a lot easier. The only real question is when Washington gives the green light.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2013, 09:49
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:Asia-Pacific appears to have sorted itself out solidly in the F-35 camp so focus now shifts to the Persian Gulf. No doubt the money is there and given their willingness to spend on the latest and the greatest, it makes the selling job a lot easier. The only real question is when Washington gives the green light.
Which begs another question... Do we really want to see our Islamic frienemies so-armed?

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2013, 12:12
by popcorn
lookieloo wrote:
popcorn wrote:Asia-Pacific appears to have sorted itself out solidly in the F-35 camp so focus now shifts to the Persian Gulf. No doubt the money is there and given their willingness to spend on the latest and the greatest, it makes the selling job a lot easier. The only real question is when Washington gives the green light.
Which begs another question... Do we really want to see our Islamic frienemies so-armed?

The US seems pretty determined to sell them everything else short of nuke subs though e.g AEGIS, THAAD,etc. $$$ and jobs created will always appeal to the politicians who make the final,decision. IMO though, no particular urgency to provide F-35s but am convinced it will happen, perhaps later than sooner. Or sooner rather than later if Russia and China decide to peddle their latest jets i the region which I expect.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2013, 05:13
by popcorn
Huh? The additional 20 units presumably must conform to the same specs applying to the initial 40 units, barring any revisions. Or DAPA up to it's old tricks again? A word of advice to Boeing and the EF Consortium... " fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me"

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... an-393730/

Believed to be in the frame for this non-stealth part of the package are the F-X III contenders Eurofighter and F-15 – and Boeing’s evident price advantage may well swing the deal. The “Advanced F-15” lacks the canted tails and conformal weapon bays of the Silent Eagle, which was already the only F-XIII bid to come in under Seoul’s original budget.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2013, 08:53
by lookieloo
weasel1962 wrote:If DiD is to be believed, then the whole issue of alternative aircraft is now moot as F-35A will now be sole aircraft for consideration in FXIII.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ko ... -on-02966/
A slightly clearer link to the source piece. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/nationa ... 0315F.html
SEOUL, Nov. 27 (Yonhap) -- Senior lawmakers and officials of the ruling Saenuri Party called on the government Wednesday to renegotiate the purchase of 40 Lockheed Martin F-35A stealth fighters from the United States, saying the deal would be unfair.

Last week, the Joint Chiefs of Staff announced that it would buy the 40 F-35 Block 3s over four years starting in 2018, with an option to buy 20 more later, depending on the security situation and the budget.

"The government made the right decision in choosing the F-35A for its stealth capabilities, but compared to Japan, the conditions (for the purchase) are strikingly unfair," Rep. Rhee In-je, a six-term lawmaker of the ruling party, said during a meeting of senior party lawmakers and Supreme Council members.

He pointed out that unlike South Korea, which plans to buy all 40 jets as finished products, Japan plans to buy only four as finished products and assemble the remaining 38.

"This isn't an issue that can be glossed over. We must try to (buy the jets) on the condition of technology transfer, on the same terms as Japan, even if that means through further negotiations," Rhee said...
Indeed, it would appear there's a long way to go yet before Korea solidifies as a customer. Odd thing is... despite being so obsessed with flat pricing over the past few months, the Koreans have apparently decided to ignore the extra costs incurred for the Japanese with domestic production. And how many F-15s have the Koreans assembled so far?

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2013, 13:51
by mk82
Hey guys, where is Slowman? I guess being Slow because he/she/it is busy eating crow! I love it how dimwitted twits end up with hot eggs on their face bwahahahaha :D

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2013, 14:41
by Conan
mk82 wrote:Hey guys, where is Slowman? I guess being Slow because he/she/it is busy eating crow! I love it how dimwitted twits end up with hot eggs on their face bwahahahaha :D


Hanging out with ELP, Snafu and Ares types.

Where he belongs, at home among the fruitcakes...

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2013, 19:26
by gtx
mk82 wrote:Hey guys, where is Slowman? I guess being Slow because he/she/it is busy eating crow! I love it how dimwitted twits end up with hot eggs on their face bwahahahaha :D


Denying it is happening.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 06:01
by popcorn
http://m.yna.co.kr/mob2/en/contents_en. ... 315&mobile

S. Korean defense chief tries to dispel worries over F-35

2013-12-04 17:15



South Korea's defense minister on Wednesday supported Seoul's plan to buy Lockheed Martin's F-35s through the U.S. foreign military sales program (FMS), vowing to get a good deal from the reduced number of stealth jets to be purchased.

Kim Kwan-jin briefed ruling Saenuri Party lawmakers on the plan to buy 40 F-35s without an open bid, as they are only sold through the U.S. government's sales conditions, which reduces Seoul's negotiating leverage.

"I will make sure that (the government) doesn't get a bad deal for price under the FMS program, and ensure a smooth technology transfer process," Kim was quoted as saying by Saenuri spokesman Yoo Il-ho during the closed-door meeting.

More...

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 07:09
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:
mk82 wrote:Hey guys, where is Slowman? I guess being Slow because he/she/it is busy eating crow! I love it how dimwitted twits end up with hot eggs on their face bwahahahaha :D


Denying it is happening.


Yup. It shouldn't surprise, hes been in denial the whole time don't know why this would change anything. I promise he will be pitching the same manure even as ROKAF F-35s are flying over Seoul. Its going to be fun to watch the "coping" mechanisms ELP and Co will employ. ELP has already moved onto settled issues like the combat capability of the Abrams Tank. Which would be really interesting if it was 1981.

I personally am holding off on visiting these sites for a while. That crow will be best served cold

I am very curious to see how much Korea produces for themselves

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 12:15
by popcorn
XanderCrews wrote:
gtx wrote:
mk82 wrote:Hey guys, where is Slowman? I guess being Slow because he/she/it is busy eating crow! I love it how dimwitted twits end up with hot eggs on their face bwahahahaha :D


Denying it is happening.


Yup. It shouldn't surprise, hes been in denial the whole time don't know why this would change anything. I promise he will be pitching the same manure even as ROKAF F-35s are flying over Seoul. Its going to be fun to watch the "coping" mechanisms ELP and Co will employ. ELP has already moved onto settled issues like the combat capability of the Abrams Tank. Which would be really interesting if it was 1981.

I personally am holding off on visiting these sites for a while. That crow will be best served cold

I am very curious to see how much Korea produces for themselves


Same here. Details of LM's offset offer that have surfaced don't mention any production deals related to JSF but who knows? LM may decide to give up a piece of it's production share if SK is willing to shoulder the investment. That satellite deal is sweet and KF-X stands to benefit too if it pushes through.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2013, 07:44
by spazsinbad
Another twist in the turn of the saga that is the South Korean purchase of something or other....

Lockheed Offers Sweeteners Over F-35A Fighter Jets 06 Dec 2013
"Lockheed Martin on Wednesday promised that if the Korean government decides to buy its F-35A fighter jets, it will ensure that no repairs are done in Japan or the U.S. It also offered to hand over information on related fighter jet programs in a technology transfer under the deal.

The U.S. aircraft maker made the pledges at a press conference with Korean journalists in Washington. It apparently volunteered to hold the press conference as a way of quelling mounting criticism over the purchase sparked by the high price tag and the firm’s apparent reluctance to share technology.

If Korea decides to buy 40 F-35A fighter jets, the aircraft would be exported as finished products manufactured at the Texas plant, according to David Scott, a vice president at the firm.

Scott said the fighter planes would not leave Korea for repairs or maintenance.

There were concerns that F-35As might be sent for repairs to Japan, which is buying them for assembly at home.

Scott also said his company "has made a comprehensive offer through our offset program for the KF-X, which would be assistance through technology transfer and engineering expertise that we would place in Korea to help design and develop" its own high tech-fighter jet.

He added that the terms Korea would be signing are similar to those with Israel and Japan. But experts believe Korean F-35A jets would have to be taken to the U.S. for repairs since they contain sensitive military technologies and Washington keeps close tabs on the transfer of stealth and other secret military technology.

Scott said the price tag of the aircraft "continues to decrease," suggesting the actual purchase price can be lowered depending on when the Korean government wants the aircraft delivered."

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/htm ... 01182.html

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2013, 08:50
by spazsinbad
'Slowman' has found an outlet here: http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com.au/20 ... -quit.html

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2013, 15:28
by spazsinbad

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2013, 23:21
by gtx
spazsinbad wrote:'Slowman' has found an outlet here: http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com.au/20 ... -quit.html


He will get a receptive audience there…I see some of the ELP regulars are also commenting…. :roll:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2013, 01:59
by steakanddoritos
spazsinbad wrote:'Slowman' has found an outlet here: http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com.au/20 ... -quit.html


WTF? Soloman is treating Sloman with the auspice of an actual news source! Slowman rants = Slowman "reports"?

By "Asia Pacific region" does he mean "Mom's Basement region"?

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2013, 02:32
by popcorn
steakanddoritos wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'Slowman' has found an outlet here: http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com.au/20 ... -quit.html


WTF? Soloman is treating Sloman with the auspice of an actual news source! Slowman rants = Slowman "reports"?

By "Asia Pacific region" does he mean "Mom's Basement region"?


LOL..,just when I thought that blog couldn't sink any lower.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2013, 07:47
by spazsinbad
Lockheed F-35 order until summer '14
20 Dec 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa

"(Reuters) - South Korea is unlikely to finalize any orders for the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 stealth fighter jet until the summer or fall of 2014, after it redoes a complicated acquisition process, according to three sources familiar with the issue.

South Korea's military chiefs last month said Seoul would buy 40 Lockheed F-35 fighters, with the first planes to be delivered in 2018, despite the fact the only Boeing Co's F-15 fighter met the competition's price target.

They say an additional 20 fighters to be acquired could be different models....

...The sources said the military chiefs' decision requires Seoul to redo part of its acquisition process and also take another look at the budget, which in turn will defer any move to finalize F-35 orders until the second half of 2014, months later than expected.

Despite the delay, South Korea is not expected to change the decision to buy F-35s, still seen as the only planes that meet the country's stealth requirement, the sources said.

"They have to file another request with the defense acquisition board, which could push it out through the summer or fall of next year," said one of the sources, who was not authorized to speak publicly. "But the F-35 is still the only plane that meets their stealth requirement."

A second source agreed. "So far, the process is that the F-35 is the only one that meets the requirements. They are pursuing the F-35 with all effort and speed," said the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the government-to-government sale.

U.S. officials had expected South Korea to order jets as part of a ninth production batch of F-35s, for which an advanced procurement contract will soon be issued, but the delay means Seoul's orders will fall back into the 10th lot of jets, said one of the three sources.

Lockheed last month said it would abide by its commitments to a range of offset projects, including construction and launch of a military communications satellite, that were submitted as part of the F-35 offer, despite the reduced order quantity from 60 to 40."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... 2720131221

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2014, 16:06
by maus92
F-35 purchase to set off air power vacuum
Lockheed jets too expensive to meet Air Force’s numerical needs
By Kang Seung-woo / Korea Times


"If Lockheed Martin wins Korea’s “next-generation” fighter program for 40 under-development F-35 Lightning IIs, it may entail a vacuum in air power, experts say.

In November, the military decided to buy stealth fighters. Because it was viewed to be the only one with such a capability among potential candidates, it was widely accepted that the Air Force had F-35s in mind.

But the problem is that Seoul is expected to finalize the F-35 order this year, aiming for the first delivery of the stealth jet in 2018.

Since aging F-4s and F-5s are to retire soon, it would mean a big hole in Air Force’s fleet of fighter jets.

The Air Force, by some estimates, would be in need of 100 new fighters by 2020.

The current budget can secure only 40 F-35s with 8.3 trillion won ($7.8 billion) 60 F-X IIIs, but Lockheed says that amount could secure 52 or 53 F-35s.

Amid the growing concerns, European Aeronautic Defense and Security Company (EADS) and Boeing, both of which can meet the timeline, are proposing a split-buy.

“If I were the Korean Air Force, I would actually do a 20-40 split-buy. That way you give yourself a chance to assess the F-35s and you might also get 40 newer aircraft at a much better price,” said James Hardy, Asia-Pacific editor of IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly."

Not much news, but explains why EADS/Airbus Military (or whatever they call themselves now) and Boeing are still in.

Source: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 49071.html

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2014, 16:10
by spazsinbad
Any quotes from the actual South Korean Guvmnt/Air Force on the issue?

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2014, 11:23
by spazsinbad
S.Korea to sign jet deal in Q3, signals commitment to Lockheed F-35s
27 Jan 2014
SEOUL, Jan 27 (Reuters) - South Korea plans to sign a deal to buy 40 fighter jets in the third quarter, its arms procurement agency said on Monday, and its plan to acquire Lockheed Martin Corp F-35s appears on track despite possible development delays.

[...]

South Korea decided to redraw the terms of its 8.3 trillion won ($7.68 billion) tender to buy 60 fighters last year, reducing the number in December to an initial 40 jets after rebuffing Boeing Co's F-15s.

Although not yet finalised, South Korea has signalled its intention to buy F-35As since its Joint Chiefs endorsed a need in December for "cutting-edge stealth" jets for first delivery in 2018.

[...]

South Korea's parliament approved some 366.4 billion won for the fighter programme in 2014, in line with South Korea's plan to finalise its choice of jets and make initial payments this year.”

Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/korea-sig ... 03578.html

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 17:02
by spazsinbad
S. Korea Will Pay Less For F-35 Including Engine, According To A Lockheed Official 21 Mar 2014 Our Bureau
"South Korea will benefit from economies of scale when production of the F-35 stealth jet goes into full swing in the next five years if it signs a contract for 40 aircraft for delivery starting from 2018, a senior Lockheed Martin official was quoted as saying by Yonhap News Agency. "Seoul is set to confirm a plan to buy 40 F-35As through the U.S. foreign military sales (FMS) program without open bidding, while the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) and the finance ministry are currently deliberating the total budget", according to the report....

...Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan said during a visit to Australia last week that the cost of the F-35 conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant will fall to US$80-85 million, the report added. "Lockheed Martin agrees with Lt. Gen. Bogdan's assessment that the cost of the F-35 is on a downward path that will lead to a Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost for an F-35A of between $80-85 million," said Randy Howard, the director of F-35 Korea business development.

"This projected price includes the aircraft, avionics and mission systems, and the engine" as well as logistics support and a flight simulator, he said. But Korean acquisition officials, who grappled with budget issues in the past program, warned the company's projection may be too rosy, the report added. "It seems like the most optimistic price estimation made under the premise that international sales of 3,200 F-35s will go ahead as planned," a senior DAPA official told Yonhap, asking for anonymity."

SOURCE: http://www.defenseworld.net/news/10259/ ... yxg2JC4YkI

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 17:24
by smsgtmac
One more report of costs coming down? I see not too many years before the 'antis' will have run out of talking points.
Of course, that won't keep Eric Palmer III from bleating 'It should have been retired 5 years ago!' in 2065,
slash-and-whine.jpg
Without the reduction in units early (more importantly unit rate of procurement) the rest of the detractor strategy fails miserably,

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2014, 05:33
by popcorn
At those price levels, expect follow-on F-35 orders. Biggest competitor for funding will be future indigenous Gen 4+ jet which would basically be the "Lo" to the F-35 "Hi". It remains to be seen if it could be built cheap enough with enough capability though and could be the SOKOR F-2 equivalent.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2014, 17:02
by spazsinbad
South Korea to Award Tanker, Fighter Contracts by End of Year 21 Mar 2014 AARON MEHTA
"WASHINGTON — The Republic of Korea Air Force expects to make a selection and sign a contract on its new tanker before the end of the year, according to one of the service’s top generals.

The service will also announce its next-generation fighter selection next month, Lt. Gen. Hyungchul Kim, the Republic of Korea air force’s vice chief of staff, told a Washington audience during a Friday event hosted by the Air Force Association.

The F-X program will replace South Korea’s aging F-4 and F-5 fighter fleet. Although Kim treated the program as an open competition, it is widely believed that Seoul has settled on Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Once that selection is made, Kim said he expects a contract before the end of the year. The selection will also help kick off the KF-X program, South Korea’s development program of an indigenous fighter design. The two programs are directly linked, with Kim saying how much technical support and tech transfer the winner of the F-X program gives to Korea the “most important factor” in its selection.

The KF-X program will “be launching in the second half of this year,” Kim said...."

SOURCE: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... 303210029/

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2014, 17:38
by spazsinbad
Long story about South Korean F-35s, price and LRIP and FRP....
F-35 finally set to take off 21 Mar 2014 Kang Seung-woo and Joint Press Corps
"“The cost of an F-35A (for the Air Force) in 2019 will be somewhere between $80 million and $85 million (86 and 91 billion won), with an engine, with profit, with inflation,” U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program executive officer, said earlier this month. Lockheed said $85 million is equivalent of $75 million today. The F-35 is a one-size-fits-all plane designed to serve the Navy and Marine Corps as well as the Air Force.

The price tag is nearly half the nation’s arms procurement agency’s estimation of $152 million.

Lockheed, which has refused to specify the unit price for the F-35, agrees with the assessment.

“I would listen to what the PEO says,” Gary North, vice president of customer requirements for aeronautics, told the Korean press contingent in Fort Worth on March 12.

Randy Howard, director of the Korea F-35 campaign, added, “The cost of the F-35 is on a downward path that will lead to a unit recurring flyaway (URF) cost for an F-35A of between $80 million and $85 million. This projected price includes the aircraft, avionics and mission systems, and the engine.”...

...Along with the price tag, its software is another challenging aspect of the F-35’s development because complex systems are held together by millions of lines of code. The F-35 has 8.6 million lines of codes, compared with F-22 Raptor’s 2.4 million.

The Korean Air Force wants to purchase F-35s with Block 3F that will give the aircraft its full operational capabilities from 2018, but F-35s are flying today on Block 2B and they plan to complete the flight test by next year and current in-flight testing is 88-percent complete.

Critics say that the F-35 will need Block 3F software by the early 2020s, but the vice president said the 3F will be delivered in 2017.

“We are confident that although you have heard that there may be some delays in the 3F from the Joint Program Office, our company is confident that we will deliver the 3F software to the customers ... and services to meet there operational requirements,” said North, a former four-star Air Force general...."

SOURCE: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 53823.html

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2014, 23:58
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:
steakanddoritos wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'Slowman' has found an outlet here: http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com.au/20 ... -quit.html


WTF? Soloman is treating Sloman with the auspice of an actual news source! Slowman rants = Slowman "reports"?

By "Asia Pacific region" does he mean "Mom's Basement region"?
LOL..,just when I thought that blog couldn't sink any lower.
Looks like Mr. Roid Rage has completely lost his $hit this time.... http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2014/ ... cribd.html

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 08:50
by spazsinbad
One Day SK will buy something and we will all be asleep. At least one day they may buy something.
Seoul to buy 40 F-35 jets for US$6.8 billion
24 Mar 2014 Reuters

"SEOUL - The Repuclic of Korea (ROK) expects to pay around 7.34 trillion won ($6.79 billion) for 40 Lockheed Martin jets, two sources with knowledge of the matter said on Monday, as Seoul boosts its air defences amid simmering tensions in the region....

...Seoul's arms procurement agency reported the estimated budget of around 7.34 trillion won to buy the radar-evading F-35s plus support systems to a committee overseeing military purchases earlier on Monday, the second source said. The sources declined to be identified as they were not authorized to speak to media.

ROK says the F-35 deal will be finalised in the third quarter, with the first delivery in 2018.

The budget has received the final approval of the finance ministry, Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) spokesman Baek Youn-hyeong said.

Lockheed said in a statement it welcomed ROK's announcement and it would support discussions between Seoul and Washington to finalise the order this year...."

Source: http://www.chinadailyasia.com/news/2014 ... 26685.html

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 13:59
by Conan
Slow man was wrong again? Who'd have thought?

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

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 18:54
by XanderCrews
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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 19:17
by gtx
Actually knowing Eric Palmer he will avoid mentioning this at all since he often simply ignores posting anything so clear cut positive. He much prefers slandering people such as those in uniform. :twisted:


As for Slowman he will simply say that it didn't happen and say that it would be illegal... :D

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 19:26
by gtx
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

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 21:12
by cantaz
My god, I don't even... REALLY? YF-35D?

The deep end just keeps getting deeper.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 00:07
by maus92
$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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 00:54
by coldman
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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 01:24
by Conan
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...

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 03:14
by spazsinbad
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:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 03:32
by XanderCrews
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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 03:45
by SpudmanWP
IIRC discounting FMS sales is illegal.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 03:49
by XanderCrews
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"

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 06:40
by hb_pencil
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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 06:42
by hb_pencil
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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 13:19
by sferrin
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

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 17:10
by XanderCrews
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...

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 22:26
by southernphantom
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:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 20:47
by cantaz
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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2014, 01:24
by arcturus
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


Entertainingly enough, that is the Snafu post that got me banned. When Sol continued deleting Sferrin's replies I asked if this was his way of controlling the narrative. That pushed the so called Marine over the edge. Ah, memories.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2014, 03:29
by XanderCrews
arcturus wrote:
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


Entertainingly enough, that is the Snafu post that got me banned. When Sol continued deleting Sferrin's replies I asked if this was his way of controlling the narrative. That pushed the so called Marine over the edge. Ah, memories.


Its funny you mention that, just today I read some blog post he made about Software and then he rheotircally said "I can't wait for the "supporters" to attempt to refute this info." ...He then proceeded to delete posts. The guy is such an idiot

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2014, 04:45
by arcturus
XanderCrews wrote:
arcturus wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Its funny you mention that, just today I read some blog post he made about Software and then he rheotircally said "I can't wait for the "supporters" to attempt to refute this info." ...He then proceeded to delete posts. The guy is such an idiot


An oddly self fulfilling prophecy, isn't he? If ignorance is bliss.....

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2014, 09:47
by spazsinbad
Korea to test-fly F-35
25 May 2014 Kang Seung-woo

"An evaluation team from the Korean Air Force will test-fly Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II before signing a deal to purchase 40 of the stealth aircraft for its "next-generation" fighter jet, the nation's procurement agency said Sunday.

"The 10-man team will visit the company's plant in Fort Worth, Texas Monday for a two-week test-flight," said an official of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA).

"We will mainly check to see if anything has changed since the 2012 test-flight." [WOW]

He added that there will be a performance test on the runway at the plant as well....

...As the F-35 will be purchased through government-to-government foreign military sales (FMS), U.S. government officials will participate in the negotiations on behalf of Lockheed Martin.

In March, U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, Pentagon's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program executive officer, said the cost of an F-35 in 2019 would be somewhere between $80 and $85 million (81 and 87 billion won), when the full-rate production brings economies of scale to international purchasers.

In addition, considering other elements such as armament, logistics and training costs that usually account for some 30 percent of the procurement budget, the price tag is estimated at around 5 trillion won.

DAPA's budget is 7.4 trillion won and is poised to bring down the price in the meeting.... [Then No Worries Chief]

...DAPA plans to sign a letter of acceptance with the U.S. government by July before finalizing the contract by the end of the third quarter."

Source: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 57819.html

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2014, 19:18
by gtx
"We will mainly check to see if anything has changed since the 2012 test-flight."


Sounds like a "junket" to me... :D

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2014, 22:27
by spazsinbad
F-35 delays raise concern
01 Aug 2014 By Song Sang-ho [Song Sung Blu must be his brudder]

"Concerns are escalating in South Korea over possible delays in the development of the F-35 fighter jet as this could hinder Seoul’s project to deploy 40 of the radar-evading aircraft from 2018-2021.

The U.S-led multinational F-35 development program has recently been in the media spotlight due to a set of accidents, most recently on June 23, when one of the warplanes’ engines caught fire before takeoff.

Apart from the hardware issues, the development of certain software could face delays of up to 14 months, Bloomberg reported, citing a Pentagon report. The software is crucial for operating navigation, communications and targeting systems, the report said.

Amid concerns about the possible delays in the U.S.’ costliest defense program, Seoul’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration said that it would “closely watch the situation.”

“As we haven’t bought any of the F-35 jets under development yet and will purchase them from 2018, we still have some time to watch the situation and wait for solutions to come,” a DAPA official told The Korea Herald, declining to be named.

“We don’t expect any serious problems yet … with respect to our procurement schedule.”..."

Source: http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20140801000547

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 10:15
by spazsinbad
LONG ARTICLE BEST READ AT SOURCE - only few excerpts below for the flavour of the sauce. :devil:
Fifth-Generation Fighters Will Determine Air Dominance in Future Conflicts
September 2014 Dan Parsons

"In August 2013, South Korea chose Boeing’s F-15SE as its next-generation fighter aircraft over Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Months later, the South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration reversed course in favor of buying fewer of the more capable F-35.

John Pike, Globalsecurity.org think tank director, said the episode is the best endorsement of the joint strike fighter’s fifth-generation technologies, regardless of its problematic development and relatively high cost.

“I think the sovereign answer on the F-35 is South Korea,” Pike told National Defense....

...Fifth-generation fighters bring more to the table than simply stealth. In future conflicts, they will charge ahead and determine which force will achieve air dominance, Pike said. Older fighters, which will still be in U.S. and other nations’ fleets for decades, will then come in and perform “clean-up” missions against enemy positions and air-defense installations, he added. They also will carry sophisticated electronic-attack weaponry designed to counter enemy radar and air defenses in the sort of non-permissive environments that U.S. aircraft have not had to contend in the wars of the past decade....

...Air Force Gen. Mike Hostage, chief of U.S. Air Combat Command, said viewing stealth as the defining characteristic of fifth-generation aircraft is shortsighted.

“When you talk about fifth-generation … stealth is one of the characteristics of it,” Hostage said in July at an Air Force Association meeting in Arlington, Virginia. “I think the most amazing difference between fourth- and fifth-gen is the fusion capability, the ability to take sensors and make the pilot no longer the fusion device. … For me that is the defining characteristic of fifth-generation.”...

...The F-35, while a potent offensive weapon, is also a tool for sensor fusion that links its pilot to a wealth of information. The aircraft can also “talk to” nearly every other platform on the battlefield, Hostage said. Allied fighters are designed with identical, completely interoperable sensing capabilities that will produce unprecedented situational and battlespace awareness, he said.

“The F-35 … has the ability to work cooperatively with other airplanes that, again, nobody else can do. That’s the power of that fleet,” Hostage said. “That’s why I’m so adamant about the fleet that I’ve got to build the F-35.”...

...Though designed to have an extremely low radar signature, the F-35 and F-22 are not invisible, Pike said. That is where existing aircraft like the Growler, which has powerful radar-jamming capabilities, will come into play.

“A little bitty radar in the nose of a fighter might not be able to see an F-35, but a big radar in a bigger airplane or on the ground might be able to see it,” he said. “If you are the loudest thing in the sky because you are an active jammer, it doesn’t make much sense to put that on a stealth aircraft. So the Growler remains useful as a standoff jammer against standoff enemy radar.”...

...All previous generations of fighters have been single-seater jets. The sixth-generation follow-on to the F-35 might break that mold. It will not necessarily have a pilot, and it might not be a fighter jet as that role has been defined in previous generations, Hostage said. He encouraged a development process that begins with the fundamental technologies that will provide leap-ahead combat capabilities and designing a platform around its future role.

“Don’t start into this process thinking … in terms of a platform,” Hostage said. “Be thinking in terms of what is the capability that future technology will bring to us that will allow us to provide air dominance in the future. If that’s a single button on a keyboard that makes all the adversaries fall to the ground, I’m OK with that.”

Source: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... licts.aspx

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2014, 14:39
by spazsinbad
S Korea to pay USD 7 bn for 40 F-35A fighter jets
24 Sep 2014

"Seoul, Sep 24 (AFP) South Korea is to pay USD 7 billion for 40 F-35A fighter jets under the terms of a deal with Lockheed Martin announced today by the state arms procurer...."

Source: http://www.ptinews.com/news/5176738_S-K ... jets-.html

Korea finalizes plan to buy F-35s for W7.3 tril.
24 Sep 2014 Jun Ji-hye

"The defense acquisition agency has finalized a plan to purchase 40 Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighters as the nation's next-generation fighters (F-X) with a total budget of 7.3 trillion won ($7 billion), officials said Wednesday.

The unit cost of each aircraft is 120 billion won.

"The plan is to gradually buy the aircraft, 10 at a time, from 2018 to 2021," said Jung Kwang-sun, director of the aircraft department at the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA).

In return for the purchase, Lockheed Martin agreed to transfer fighter-related technology in 17 areas to Korea in its bid to develop an indigenous fighter, codenamed KF-X, to replace aging F-4 and F-5 jets.

The Defense Acquisition Program Executive Committee, which was presided over by Defense Minister Han Min-koo, approved the plan later Wednesday.

Following the agreement, the government is set to sign letters of agreement sent by the U.S. side. This is expected to be completed by the end of the month, Jung said....

...Initially, Korea planned to introduce 60 high-tech combat planes with a budget of 8.3 trillion won, but the government later said it had decided to buy 40 F-35s first, saying it would decide later when to buy the remaining 20 based on changes in the national security situation. But the main reason was reportedly difficulty in allocating the additional funds.

"We have yet to decide whether we will also choose F-35s when we purchase the remaining 20," said Jung...."

Source: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 65179.html

South Korea to sign deal this month to buy 40 F-35 jets for $7 billion: sources
24 Sep 2014 (Reporting by Joyce Lee; Editing by Christopher Cushing)

"(Reuters) - South Korea will sign a deal this month to buy 40 Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jets for about 7.34 trillion won ($7.06 billion) for delivery in 2018-2021, two people with knowledge of the transaction told Reuters on Wednesday.

South Korea in March became the 10th country to choose F-35 fighter jets,...

...The U.S. government's head of the F-35 program said in an official document to the South Korean government that the engine failure was within the realm of possibility considered during development, one of the people said.

The F-35 program head also said the incident had no effect on the quality, price, delivery date and safety of the jets - a conclusion South Korea is viewing as a sort of guarantee, the person added.

A follow-up contract will be signed to allow basic maintenance of the jets within South Korea, the person said, with South Korea being free to choose the location of more involved maintenance...."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/ ... P620140924

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2014, 18:18
by XanderCrews
In before Slowman# telling us this isn't actually happening. :D Sol is too busy drooling about the strike in Syria to give us the low down.


Other than that, Great news!

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2014, 20:27
by cantaz
I wasn't going to mention his name in case it actually end up summoning him or something.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2014, 02:46
by spazsinbad
Republic Of Korea Approves Procurement Of Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II
24 Sep 2014 LM PR

"FORT WORTH, Texas, Sept. 24, 2014 – The Republic of Korea finalized its formal selection of the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35A Lightning II aircraft for its F-X fighter acquisition program, announcing its intent to sign the Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) between the U.S. and Korean governments for 40 F-35A Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) variant jets with initial deliveries beginning in 2018....

...Following a comprehensive evaluation process for its F-X program, the Republic of Korea, which first announced its competitive selection of the F-35 over the 4th Generation Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle and the EADS Eurofighter Typhoon in March this year, now becomes the third Foreign Military Sales country to procure the F-35, joining Israel and Japan who selected the F-35A in 2010 and 2011, respectively...."

Source: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/p ... -f-35.html

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2014, 06:11
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:
Republic Of Korea Approves Procurement Of Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II
24 Sep 2014 LM PR

"FORT WORTH, Texas, Sept. 24, 2014 – The Republic of Korea finalized its formal selection of the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35A Lightning II aircraft for its F-X fighter acquisition program, announcing its intent to sign the Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) between the U.S. and Korean governments for 40 F-35A Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) variant jets with initial deliveries beginning in 2018....

...Following a comprehensive evaluation process for its F-X program, the Republic of Korea, which first announced its competitive selection of the F-35 over the 4th Generation Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle and the EADS Eurofighter Typhoon in March this year, now becomes the third Foreign Military Sales country to procure the F-35, joining Israel and Japan who selected the F-35A in 2010 and 2011, respectively...."

Source: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/p ... -f-35.html



With another order likely to follow in the future! Same could be said for Japan and Israel. Just the tip of the iceberg. :wink:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 17:44
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Strikes S. Korean F-35 Offset Deal
19 Mar 2015 Andrew Chuter

"LONDON — When Lockheed Martin said last year it was to use a European-built satellite as part of its offset offering in a $7 billion agreement with South Korea to buy F-35A fighters, the company was short on detail as to exactly what was involved in this unusual arrangement.

That veil of secrecy lifted a little Tuesday, when a seemingly innocuous press release posted on the website of Blenheim Capital announced the British offset experts had set up a subsidiary company in Luxembourg to "purchase, launch and provide satellite communications capacity, initially to the Asia Pacific region."...

...Lockheed agreed to a deal with South Korea for the sale of 40 F-35 combat jets last year. Some 50 percent of the value of the near $7 billion agreement is covered by offset arrangements....

...Entirely by coincidence, military communications capacity in Asia received a further boost earlier this week when the British Ministry of Defence announced it was repositioning one of its Skynet 5 satellites to the Asia Pacific region for the first time.

A ground station is being built in Australia as part of a multimillion pound investment to provide the British with secure communications in the region."


Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /25009451/

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2016, 17:33
by spazsinbad
Korea F-35A Program Coming Together
25 Aug 2016 Wendell Minnick

"Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $7 million contract for providing the multispectral database for the upcoming delivery to South Korea of 40 F-35A Lightening II [can you believe the spelling & from an aviation correspondent - what a frickin' joke - get with the program pal] stealth fighters with conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) capability.

The contract was awarded Aug. 23 by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) under the Foreign Military Sales program. The US Naval Air Systems Command in Maryland will handle the contract.

The 40 F-35A CTOL fighters were released to South Korea in March 2013 for $7.06 billion. Then in May, the DSCA released $793 million of arms in support of the F-35, including 274 AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, 530 Joint Directed Attack Munitions (JDAM), 154 AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and 530 “Bunker Buster” BLU-109 2000LB Penetrators equipped with JDAM....

...Lockheed will begin deliveries of the F-35A in the 2018-2021 time frame."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/kor ... g-together

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2016, 18:56
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote:
Lockheed Strikes S. Korean F-35 Offset Deal
19 Mar 2015 Andrew Chuter

"LONDON — When Lockheed Martin said last year it was to use a European-built satellite as part of its offset offering in a $7 billion agreement with South Korea to buy F-35A fighters, the company was short on detail as to exactly what was involved in this unusual arrangement.

That veil of secrecy lifted a little Tuesday, when a seemingly innocuous press release posted on the website of Blenheim Capital announced the British offset experts had set up a subsidiary company in Luxembourg to "purchase, launch and provide satellite communications capacity, initially to the Asia Pacific region."...

...Lockheed agreed to a deal with South Korea for the sale of 40 F-35 combat jets last year. Some 50 percent of the value of the near $7 billion agreement is covered by offset arrangements....

...Entirely by coincidence, military communications capacity in Asia received a further boost earlier this week when the British Ministry of Defence announced it was repositioning one of its Skynet 5 satellites to the Asia Pacific region for the first time.

A ground station is being built in Australia as part of a multimillion pound investment to provide the British with secure communications in the region."


Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /25009451/


Skynet_logo.jpg

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2016, 19:05
by bojack_horseman
The 40 F-35A CTOL fighters were released to South Korea in March 2013 for $7.06 billion.


Seems rather pricey?

Surely that would be incl life cycle costs?

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2016, 19:09
by SpudmanWP
$175 mil a pop for full cost that includes sims, transport, initial tooling, spares, support, etc seems normal.

The F-15 offer was $128 per but since the South Koreans already operated the F-15, much of the ancillary items were not included.

Given that the F-35 is cheaper to operate & support vs the F-15, the cost difference will be made up several times over during its lifetime.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2016, 20:40
by zerion
South Korea considers buying 20 more F-35A stealth jets


SEOUL, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- South Korea is considering purchasing 20 additional radar-evading F-35A fighters to enhance its air combat capabilities, military officials said Monday.

The idea comes in the wake of a nuclear test by North Korea last week...

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 473697715/

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2016, 20:56
by XanderCrews
zerion wrote:South Korea considers buying 20 more F-35A stealth jets


SEOUL, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- South Korea is considering purchasing 20 additional radar-evading F-35A fighters to enhance its air combat capabilities, military officials said Monday.

The idea comes in the wake of a nuclear test by North Korea last week...

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 473697715/



Oh slowman?

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2016, 21:16
by zerion
XanderCrews wrote:
zerion wrote:South Korea considers buying 20 more F-35A stealth jets


SEOUL, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- South Korea is considering purchasing 20 additional radar-evading F-35A fighters to enhance its air combat capabilities, military officials said Monday.

The idea comes in the wake of a nuclear test by North Korea last week...

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 473697715/



Oh slowman?

I was thinking of his state of mind when I posted this.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2016, 21:33
by bigjku
Things like this are why the initial orders for almost everyone didn't matter nearly as much in terms of numbers. Japan will order more. Israel will order more. If Europe really feels threatened they will order more. Winning he contest it ones means the F-35 is the only option to respond to hanging security needs right now.

For the most part if any "western" power sees a threat and need to expand its Air Force it's going to be buying F-35 for the next 15 plus years.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2016, 23:19
by popcorn
The F-35 will be the preferred hitman if and when the SOKORS decide to pull the plug on KJU.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 17:46
by maus92
S. Korean Parliament Refuses To Hike F-35 Budget
Dec 5, 2016 Bradley Perrett and Kim Minseok | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

"SEOUL, BEIJING— The South Korean Parliament has refused a defense ministry request to spend 30% more on Lockheed Martin F-35 acquisition in 2017 ....."

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/s-k ... -35-budget

This is a developing story behind a paywall. The full story should be available later today or tomorrow.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 18:54
by optimist
Is this 'developing story' the start of the rot, a death spiral, the chickens coming home to roost?
Or is it they are ordering some in 2017. Someone said, what about more and the purse holder said no, we go as planned?

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 19:24
by SpudmanWP
This may be related to their desire to order more F-35s but we won't know the details until the paywall comes down or someone else reports more details.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/09/south-ko ... hter-jets/

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 19:56
by optimist
I think it's just a headline and Maus' FUD :shock:
Increasing a very early order only loads the start and makes things harder. I think they are ordereing 10, 15 is a big jump

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 14:48
by Dragon029
S. Korean Parliament Refuses To Hike F-35 Budget
Dec 5, 2016 Bradley Perrett and Kim Minseok | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

SEOUL, BEIJING— The South Korean Parliament has refused a defense ministry request to spend 30% more on Lockheed Martin F-35 acquisition in 2017 than originally planned.

But the Parliament has authorized more spending next year than the ministry wanted for Lockheed Martin F-16 upgrades and buying air-to-surface missiles.

As requested by the ministry, the 2017 budget authorized on Dec. 3 amounts to 40.3 trillion won ($34.5 billion). This included 12 trillion won for weapon acquisition and research and development.

South Korea decided in November 2013 to buy 40 F-35s, which would serve alongside Boeing F-15Ks as the country’s main strike fighters. According to a schedule set early in the program, 900 billion won would be spent on the F-35 acquisition in 2017. Deliveries have been due in 2018–21.

But in its budget request the ministry asked for 30% more because the 2017 installment under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales process turned out to be unexpectedly high. The Parliament has denied that request, although at 987.1 billion won the 2017 funding will be higher than originally scheduled.

The pace of deliveries will therefore be slowed.

Funding for F-16 upgrades in 2017, 100 billion won, will be 50% above the ministry’s request. Lockheed Martin is running the upgrade program for 134 F-16s, which includes installation of Northrop Grumman APG-83 radars.

The U.S. Air Force has emphasized the importance of upgrading the aircraft, because their lack of such systems as data links and advanced radars inhibits their ability to cooperate with the South Korean air force.

The budget for buying KEPD-350 Taurus missiles, made by MBDA and Saab Dynamics, is 130 billion won, about 70% more than requested. A conference between the government and the most numerous party in Parliament, the Saenuri Party, called in October for increases of the missile. The Taurus is valued for its ability to penetrate hardened targets such as command bunkers and tunnels in which North Korean ballistic missiles may be hidden.

North Korea’s September nuclear test has encouraged South Korea to spend more on defending against or deterring the threat. The Parliament allocated 30 billion won for a ballistic-missile warning radar, up from the requested 8.7 billion.

The secret part of the budget seems to allocate increased funding for two programs with which South Korea hopes to deter North Korea, an official source says. These are Korea Massive Punishment and Retaliation, with which the country’s defense forces are prepared to strike heavily in response to a North Korean nuclear attack, and Korea Air and Missile Defense, aimed at bolstering the capacity to intercept ballistic missiles.

The Parliament has also added a little funding to get the defense ministry moving on a program for acquiring maritime aircraft that could be used against North Korean submarines. The ministry asked for no money for this, but the Parliament has allocated 100 million won, enough for administrative preparations.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 17:17
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:S. Korean Parliament Refuses To Hike F-35 Budget
Dec 5, 2016 Bradley Perrett and Kim Minseok | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

"SEOUL, BEIJING— The South Korean Parliament has refused a defense ministry request to spend 30% more on Lockheed Martin F-35 acquisition in 2017 ....."

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/s-k ... -35-budget

This is a developing story behind a paywall. The full story should be available later today or tomorrow.


Oh no!! Oh geez!!

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 18:49
by SpudmanWP
LOL as it's just about a larger-than-planned-for down-payment and not about final price.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 18:53
by maus92
Paywall down:

http://aviationweek.com/defense/s-korea ... -35-budget

..."South Korea decided in November 2013 to buy 40 F-35s, which would serve alongside Boeing F-15Ks as the country’s main strike fighters. According to a schedule set early in the program, 900 billion won would be spent on the F-35 acquisition in 2017. Deliveries have been due in 2018–21.

But in its budget request the [defense] ministry asked for 30% more because the 2017 installment under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales process turned out to be unexpectedly high. The Parliament has denied that request, although at 987.1 billion won the 2017 funding will be higher than originally scheduled.

The pace of deliveries will therefore be slowed...."

Acquiring the F-35 turns out to be 30% more expensive than anticipated - more evidence that the cost curve has flattened. LM / JPO need to pay attention because the incoming administration is at least sounding like it's getting serious about cutting underperforming / over budget programs.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 19:04
by sferrin
maus92 wrote:Paywall down:

http://aviationweek.com/defense/s-korea ... -35-budget

..."South Korea decided in November 2013 to buy 40 F-35s, which would serve alongside Boeing F-15Ks as the country’s main strike fighters. According to a schedule set early in the program, 900 billion won would be spent on the F-35 acquisition in 2017. Deliveries have been due in 2018–21.

But in its budget request the [defense] ministry asked for 30% more because the 2017 installment under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales process turned out to be unexpectedly high. The Parliament has denied that request, although at 987.1 billion won the 2017 funding will be higher than originally scheduled.

The pace of deliveries will therefore be slowed...."

Acquiring the F-35 turns out to be 30% more expensive than anticipated - more evidence that the cost curve has flattened. LM / JPO need to pay attention because the incoming administration is at least sounding like it's getting serious about cutting underperforming / over budget programs.


I'm sure you'll keep your fingers crossed. :roll:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 19:06
by SpudmanWP
maus92 wrote:Acquiring the F-35 turns out to be 30% more expensive than anticipated


Stop the BS.. It's just the down payment that is unexpectedly high. The overall price is not reported to have changed.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 20:12
by marauder2048
SpudmanWP wrote:
maus92 wrote:Acquiring the F-35 turns out to be 30% more expensive than anticipated


Stop the BS.. It's just the down payment that is unexpectedly high. The overall price is not reported to have changed.



Or it's the 20%+ swing in Korean Won <-> USD plus the FMS/USG administrative fees which add another 5 - 10%

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2016, 03:49
by Corsair1963
The F-35 is the only option for South Korea in the foreseeable future to counter China and/or North Korea. So, not like she really has an option regardless the price....

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2016, 16:27
by maus92
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-35 is the only option for South Korea in the foreseeable future to counter China and/or North Korea. So, not like she really has an option regardless the price....


F-15K is another option.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2016, 16:31
by maus92
SpudmanWP wrote:
maus92 wrote:Acquiring the F-35 turns out to be 30% more expensive than anticipated


Stop the BS.. It's just the down payment that is unexpectedly high. The overall price is not reported to have changed.


Yet the "pace of delivery will be slowed." (Which might actually be a good thing.) 30% difference in the estimate to the actual is a large margin. Somebody lowballed the estimate, and the program is getting bitch-slapped by their legislators.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2016, 17:07
by SpudmanWP
maus92 wrote:[Yet the "pace of delivery will be slowed." (Which might actually be a good thing.)


Slowing them down (ie annual buy rates) will just make them more expensive and drive up the cost of keeping the current systems flying.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2016, 18:12
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
maus92 wrote:Acquiring the F-35 turns out to be 30% more expensive than anticipated


Stop the BS.. It's just the down payment that is unexpectedly high. The overall price is not reported to have changed.


Yet the "pace of delivery will be slowed." (Which might actually be a good thing.) 30% difference in the estimate to the actual is a large margin. Somebody lowballed the estimate, and the program is getting bitch-slapped by their legislators.


"Bitch slapped"= still buying them

Want to see a real bitch slap take a look at what Trump said to Boeing regarding AF1.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 18:31
by zerion
South Korea plans to buy 20 additional F-35 aircraft: report
Reuters

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea plans to buy an additional 20 F-35A stealth fighter aircraft from the United States, a South Korean newspaper reported on Thursday, less than two months after U.S. President Donald Trump announced Seoul would be purchasing billions of dollars in new military equipment.

South Korea’s Defence Acquisition Program Administration has established a process for procuring the 20 additional aircraft, the Joongang Ilbo newspaper reported, citing multiple government sources.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/south-korea- ... 56704.html


In other news the F-35 has entered the death spiral.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 19:31
by XanderCrews
zerion wrote:
South Korea plans to buy 20 additional F-35 aircraft: report
Reuters

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea plans to buy an additional 20 F-35A stealth fighter aircraft from the United States, a South Korean newspaper reported on Thursday, less than two months after U.S. President Donald Trump announced Seoul would be purchasing billions of dollars in new military equipment.

South Korea’s Defence Acquisition Program Administration has established a process for procuring the 20 additional aircraft, the Joongang Ilbo newspaper reported, citing multiple government sources.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/south-korea- ... 56704.html


In other news the F-35 has entered the death spiral.


Will this program ever quit death spiraling :mrgreen:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 19:41
by botsing
XanderCrews wrote:Will this program ever quit death spiraling

I guess the F-35 deathspiral is in a deathspiral. :mrgreen:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 19:58
by steve2267
KJU is the gift that keeps on giving. I am somewhat flabbergasted that maus has not called for an investigation into LM for their obvious puppeteering / string pulling of KJU. KJU starts making stupid pronouncements, countries get spooked, buy more F-35s... LM stock keeps going up up up. Its a conspiracy I tell ya.. :devil:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 20:59
by nutshell
The undisputed best westen fighter HAS to come with the premium price tag; honestly speaking.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 02:29
by blindpilot
XanderCrews wrote:
zerion wrote:
South Korea plans to buy 20 additional F-35 aircraft: report
Reuters

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea plans to buy an additional 20 F-35A stealth fighter aircraft..

In other news the F-35 has entered the death spiral.

Will this program ever quit death spiraling :mrgreen:


Just for those keeping score there are now more F-35s than Gripens of any A/C/E model, and of course the less than 200 Rafales. It's certainly good those aircraft are not experiencing this death spiral ... or... maybe they wished they were? ...

Just Saying,
BP

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 02:39
by mas
The more important question is will there be more F-35s built than F-16s ? Probably, in the end by say 2045-50.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 02:58
by blindpilot
mas wrote:The more important question is will there be more F-35s built than F-16s ? Probably, in the end by say 2045-50.


Now that would be one hell of a death spiral!

MHO
BP

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 03:09
by hythelday
blindpilot wrote:
mas wrote:The more important question is will there be more F-35s built than F-16s ? Probably, in the end by say 2045-50.


Now that would be one hell of a death spiral!

MHO
BP

I'll be happy as long as they beat Fulcrums. Su-30M##/-35S' are doable by 2025.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 04:24
by neptune
blindpilot wrote:
mas wrote:The more important question is will there be more F-35s built than F-16s ? Probably, in the end by say 2045-50.


Now that would be one hell of a death spiral!

MHO
BP



....with the "optionally manned" B-21 Raider expected to enter combat service by 2025 and the evolution of electronics/ avionics should allow for the development of new a/c prior to 2035 (15yrs.) and should cap the production of the F-35 for the US and the allies at that time. The production demand should complete the 3,000+ a/c, as was planned from todays 260+. The 180 total production per year may be parceled out to FW and the FACOs in Italy and Japan. The additional purchases by "new" allies should allow for a reduction in the F-35 US replacement program a/c (F-15C?) and identify the need for "new" a/c designs from the matured F-35/ B-21 programs, PCA comes to mind.
:)

... the F-35 may be flying in 2050 but long after (15yrs.) production is completed.
:drool:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2017, 11:06
by mas
There are just so many old jets that will eventually need replacing I can see the F-35 going past the 5k mark this century. I don't see production ending in 2035 more like 2055.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2017, 12:17
by juretrn
mas wrote:There are just so many old jets that will eventually need replacing I can see the F-35 going past the 5k mark this century. I don't see production ending in 2035 more like 2055.

An then one day in say 20 or 30 years when the F-35 replacement will be under development we'll be hearing the same old tired argument "why do we need the F-45 when the F-35 is a proven design that is cheap and reliable" and such nonsense. I guess the reaction on these forums will again be :roll: :roll:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2017, 12:38
by tincansailor
[
quote="juretrn"]
mas wrote:There are just so many old jets that will eventually need replacing I can see the F-35 going past the 5k mark this century. I don't see production ending in 2035 more like 2055.

An then one day in say 20 or 30 years when the F-35 replacement will be under development we'll be hearing the same old tired argument "why do we need the F-45 when the F-35 is a proven design that is cheap and reliable" and such nonsense. I guess the reaction on these forums will again be :roll: :roll:

[/quote]

Your almost certainly right. Every old argument is simple recycled. The problem is most people can't remember they've been over the same ground before. We didn't need the B-52 because we had more advanced bombers coming down the pipeline. Then the B-52 was good enough to do the job for the foreseeable future. Over 50 years for the H Model. That's some long view.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2017, 14:52
by XanderCrews
hythelday wrote:
blindpilot wrote:
mas wrote:The more important question is will there be more F-35s built than F-16s ? Probably, in the end by say 2045-50.


Now that would be one hell of a death spiral!

MHO
BP

I'll be happy as long as they beat Fulcrums. Su-30M##/-35S' are doable by 2025.



That's doable now.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2017, 13:15
by hythelday
XanderCrews wrote:
hythelday wrote:I'll be happy as long as they beat Fulcrums. Su-30M##/-35S' are doable by 2025.



That's doable now.


Number-wise. There are roughly 500 Flankers that Russians call "4++ gen" birds. There should be almost twice as many F-35s in wirldwide fleets by 2025.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2017, 13:50
by madrat
When large numbers of F-35 outnumber Russian and Chinese Flankers, Fulcrums, and Vigorous Dragon what happens? I cannot imagine a general panic will not set in.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2017, 15:57
by XanderCrews
hythelday wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
hythelday wrote:I'll be happy as long as they beat Fulcrums. Su-30M##/-35S' are doable by 2025.



That's doable now.


Number-wise. There are roughly 500 Flankers that Russians call "4++ gen" birds. There should be almost twice as many F-35s in wirldwide fleets by 2025.



Sorry thought combat capability, not numbers. My mistake

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2017, 03:37
by nutshell
combat wise the correct definition is "F35, not even close"

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 15:12
by mixelflick
[/quote]
I'll be happy as long as they beat Fulcrums. Su-30M##/-35S' are doable by 2025.[/quote]


That's doable now.[/quote]

I was going to say!

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2018, 21:59
by spazsinbad
Interesting use of 'doubles' in an 'off topic' part of this article - only F-35 excerpts below though - more on other stuff....?
North Korean Threat Prompts New Japan, Korean Buys
02 Jan 2017 Chen Chuanren

"...Meanwhile, the Republic of Korea will reportedly exercise an option to buy at least 20 more Lockheed Martin F-35s, again in response to North Korean belligerence....

...According to the Joongang Ilbo newspaper, Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) has begun the acquisition process for 20 additional Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II stealth fighters. However, Israeli website Defence Industry Daily said that 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.

The F-35s will be part of South Korea’s “kill-chain' pre-emptive strike plan, which involves a series of planned strategic strikes to supposedly eliminate North Korea’s key offensive capabilities in the event of war."

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... orean-buys

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2018, 23:02
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Interesting use of 'doubles' in an 'off topic' part of this article - only F-35 excerpts below though - more on other stuff....?
North Korean Threat Prompts New Japan, Korean Buys
02 Jan 2017 Chen Chuanren

"...Meanwhile, the Republic of Korea will reportedly exercise an option to buy at least 20 more Lockheed Martin F-35s, again in response to North Korean belligerence....

...According to the Joongang Ilbo newspaper, Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) has begun the acquisition process for 20 additional Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II stealth fighters. However, Israeli website Defence Industry Daily said that 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.

The F-35s will be part of South Korea’s “kill-chain' pre-emptive strike plan, which involves a series of planned strategic strikes to supposedly eliminate North Korea’s key offensive capabilities in the event of war."

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... orean-buys


....Geez!, next thing we'll hear is Israel ordering "Bees"!
:)

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 03:07
by weasel1962
There is absolutely zero threat from NK to require F-35Bs onboard LHDs for South Korea (or Japan for that matter). The real threat to SLOCs is really from a bigger neighbor that no ones wants to name esp after THAAD had already caused in terms of economic impacts.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 04:36
by neptune
weasel1962 wrote:There is absolutely zero threat from NK to require F-35Bs onboard LHDs for South Korea (or Japan for that matter). The real threat to SLOCs is really from a bigger neighbor that no ones wants to name esp after THAAD had already caused in terms of economic impacts.


....so as not to get this thread off track;
- S. Korea buys Bees for their ships
- Japan buys Bees for their ships
- Italy buys Bees for their ship
- Spain buys Bees for their ship
- UK buys Bees for their ships
- USN buys Bees for the Marines
- Turkey buys Bees for their ship
- Aussies buy Bees for their ships (maybe)
- Israel buys Bees for grins
- Singapore buys Bees for grins (2)

...so who did I overlook?

...who the heck is building all of these "ruin the program" a/c?, Italy and Japan?

...then I thought, "BOEING"!, why not?, they both start with "B"! Prez Trump could leverage LM to let Boeing license the "Bee" and they could jump in and help out both FACOs in Italy and Japan; again upping the thru put for FW!
Win-Win! :roll:

...besides, LM doesn't want to miss out on the "first" USN shipboard fighter ("Sea") built by Lockheed!
:)

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 05:42
by citanon
weasel1962 wrote:There is absolutely zero threat from NK to require F-35Bs onboard LHDs for South Korea (or Japan for that matter). The real threat to SLOCs is really from a bigger neighbor that no ones wants to name esp after THAAD had already caused in terms of economic impacts.


Mobile ballistic missiles, leadership targets.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 06:10
by weasel1962
citanon wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:There is absolutely zero threat from NK to require F-35Bs onboard LHDs for South Korea (or Japan for that matter). The real threat to SLOCs is really from a bigger neighbor that no ones wants to name esp after THAAD had already caused in terms of economic impacts.


Mobile ballistic missiles, leadership targets.


That's what F-15K, KF-16s and F-35As tackle. Don't need F-35Bs.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 06:36
by citanon
weasel1962 wrote:
citanon wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:There is absolutely zero threat from NK to require F-35Bs onboard LHDs for South Korea (or Japan for that matter). The real threat to SLOCs is really from a bigger neighbor that no ones wants to name esp after THAAD had already caused in terms of economic impacts.


Mobile ballistic missiles, leadership targets.


That's what F-15K, KF-16s and F-35As tackle. Don't need F-35Bs.


You want the sensor fusion for helping to track down the mobile launchers and you want the stealth to not let the launchers or VIPs know you are even in the area. As for F35 A vs B, the more F35s, the merrier.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 07:19
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
citanon wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:There is absolutely zero threat from NK to require F-35Bs onboard LHDs for South Korea (or Japan for that matter). The real threat to SLOCs is really from a bigger neighbor that no ones wants to name esp after THAAD had already caused in terms of economic impacts.


Mobile ballistic missiles, leadership targets.


That's what F-15K, KF-16s and F-35As tackle. Don't need F-35Bs.




The F-35B's would offer considerable flexibility. They also can be operated from "austere" forward bases. Something the aforementioned aircraft cannot......

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 07:31
by Corsair1963
neptune wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:There is absolutely zero threat from NK to require F-35Bs onboard LHDs for South Korea (or Japan for that matter). The real threat to SLOCs is really from a bigger neighbor that no ones wants to name esp after THAAD had already caused in terms of economic impacts.


....so as not to get this thread off track;
- S. Korea buys Bees for their ships
- Japan buys Bees for their ships
- Italy buys Bees for their ship
- Spain buys Bees for their ship
- UK buys Bees for their ships
- USN buys Bees for the Marines
- Turkey buys Bees for their ship
- Aussies buy Bees for their ships (maybe)
- Israel buys Bees for grins

...so who did I overlook?

...who the heck is building all of these "ruin the program" a/c?, Italy and Japan?

...then I thought, "BOEING"!, why not?, they both start with "B"! Prez Trump could leverage LM to let Boeing license the "Bee" and they could jump in and help out both FACOs in Italy and Japan; again upping the thru put for FW!
Win-Win! :roll:

...besides, LM doesn't want to miss out on the "first" USN shipboard fighter ("Sea") built by Lockheed!
:)


You forgot Singapore.........and long-term India could be an option?

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 08:20
by neptune
Corsair1963 wrote:
neptune wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:There is absolutely zero threat from NK to require F-35Bs onboard LHDs for South Korea (or Japan for that matter). The real threat to SLOCs is really from a bigger neighbor that no ones wants to name esp after THAAD had already caused in terms of economic impacts.


....so as not to get this thread off track;
- S. Korea buys Bees for their ships
- Japan buys Bees for their ships
- Italy buys Bees for their ship
- Spain buys Bees for their ship
- UK buys Bees for their ships
- USN buys Bees for the Marines
- Turkey buys Bees for their ship
- Aussies buy Bees for their ships (maybe)
- Israel buys Bees for grins

...so who did I overlook?

...who the heck is building all of these "ruin the program" a/c?, Italy and Japan?

...then I thought, "BOEING"!, why not?, they both start with "B"! Prez Trump could leverage LM to let Boeing license the "Bee" and they could jump in and help out both FACOs in Italy and Japan; again upping the thru put for FW!
Win-Win! :roll:

...besides, LM doesn't want to miss out on the "first" USN shipboard fighter ("Sea") built by Lockheed!
:)


You forgot Singapore.........and long-term India could be an option?


..thks, Singapore!;.....India, only if Russia stumbles and provides 5Gen to Pakistan to bolster Iran in their fumbling around Syria, Israel, Lebanon. It seems unlikely that China would provide 5Gen to Pak adding a second Indian border with 5Gen and the US would have to help reestablish a technology balance of sorts for India, otherwise; Not!

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 08:36
by neptune
citanon wrote:.....You want the sensor fusion for helping to track down the mobile launchers and you want the stealth to not let the launchers or VIPs know you are even in the area.....


....NK is not a large country and they don't have many mobile launchers.
- I expect each launcher is now numbered in our inventory with the "pet cat's name" of the leading NCO/ Officer assigned to that launcher.
- Also, the F-35 Mission Data Files should be teeming with allied info from SKorea, Japan, and other interested parties; such that not only are the launchers located but the defense? systems are completely identified down to the color of the PS4 Slim that the defense radar console technicians have in their pockets.
- Sensor Fusion is for validating the Mission Data Files info, not for signal discovery during a strike mission.
- Lastly, the F-35s are only a couple of hundred miles away in sunny Japan and can quickly attend a B-2, F-22 strike if need be.
:)

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 08:52
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-35B's would offer considerable flexibility. They also can be operated from "austere" forward bases. Something the aforementioned aircraft cannot......


Yup, its a brilliant capability for the B but not really required for Korea. Its hardened airbases are outside the range of NK arty and the US still has Patriots in Korea (and occasionally bolsters that with a few Aegis DDGs). ROK does have quite a few spare runways to run its existing warplanes. Forward basing will just put the aircraft in range of NK arty (and that they have a lot of. I think their money is better spent developing an Iron dome equivalent.

Neptune wrote:....NK is not a large country and they don't have many mobile launchers.


I won't be surprised if they have 12 or more fake launchers for every real one.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 09:47
by hythelday
neptune wrote:
citanon wrote:.....You want the sensor fusion for helping to track down the mobile launchers and you want the stealth to not let the launchers or VIPs know you are even in the area.....


....NK is not a large country and they don't have many mobile launchers.
- I expect each launcher is now numbered in our inventory with the "pet cat's name" of the leading NCO/ Officer assigned to that launcher.
- Also, the F-35 Mission Data Files should be teeming with allied info from SKorea, Japan, and other interested parties; such that not only are the launchers located but the defense? systems are completely identified down to the color of the PS4 Slim that the defense radar console technicians have in their pockets.
- Sensor Fusion is for validating the Mission Data Files info, not for signal discovery during a strike mission.
- Lastly, the F-35s are only a couple of hundred miles away in sunny Japan and can quickly attend a B-2, F-22 strike if need be.
:)


When you fight a war, you want it as unfair to the opponent as you can get. F-35Bs taking off from the boat will be closer to interdict targets in the north of North Korea, while F-35As and the rest of ROK AF will be busy with the targets in the immediate vicinity of own troops.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 10:36
by weasel1962
hythelday wrote:When you fight a war, you want it as unfair to the opponent as you can get. F-35Bs taking off from the boat will be closer to interdict targets in the north of North Korea, while F-35As and the rest of ROK AF will be busy with the targets in the immediate vicinity of own troops.


Not going to happen. NK waters is going to be mined or sub-risk. You won't want to send a LHD with just 6 F-35Bs just for that when its easier and safer to just send many more F-35As across the 200km northwards into NK (or less once GBU-39/53s ranges are factored in).

There's really only 1 reason imho why Bs would be useful for South Korea and that's SLOC defense.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 11:15
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
Yup, its a brilliant capability for the B but not really required for Korea. Its hardened airbases are outside the range of NK arty and the US still has Patriots in Korea (and occasionally bolsters that with a few Aegis DDGs). ROK does have quite a few spare runways to run its existing warplanes. Forward basing will just put the aircraft in range of NK arty (and that they have a lot of. I think their money is better spent developing an Iron dome equivalent.



Sure could South Korea live without the F-35 well of course. Yet, if you can afford it would in be a nice have...YES :wink:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 11:19
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
hythelday wrote:When you fight a war, you want it as unfair to the opponent as you can get. F-35Bs taking off from the boat will be closer to interdict targets in the north of North Korea, while F-35As and the rest of ROK AF will be busy with the targets in the immediate vicinity of own troops.


Not going to happen. NK waters is going to be mined or sub-risk. You won't want to send a LHD with just 6 F-35Bs just for that when its easier and safer to just send many more F-35As across the 200km northwards into NK (or less once GBU-39/53s ranges are factored in).

There's really only 1 reason imho why Bs would be useful for South Korea and that's SLOC defense.



Sorry, your loosing the battle. The F-35B clearly has a many of advantages over non-STOVL Types.....Which, a number of the members have clearly pointed out.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 11:20
by hythelday
weasel1962 wrote:
hythelday wrote:When you fight a war, you want it as unfair to the opponent as you can get. F-35Bs taking off from the boat will be closer to interdict targets in the north of North Korea, while F-35As and the rest of ROK AF will be busy with the targets in the immediate vicinity of own troops.


Not going to happen. NK waters is going to be mined or sub-risk. You won't want to send a LHD with just 6 F-35Bs just for that when its easier and safer to just send many more F-35As across the 200km northwards into NK (or less once GBU-39/53s ranges are factored in).

There's really only 1 reason imho why Bs would be useful for South Korea and that's SLOC defense.


Well I guess all those ROK Marines & USMC training amphib landings are a joke then. And their current and future LHDs & LSTs are meant to evacuate Pusan perimeter 1950-style, not for offensive ops. And US regularly sends carriers and gators to the region in order to NOT train for contingency. And F-35B first Wasp deployment WON'T be off the coast off Korea. :bang:

ROK has Marines as well as flat deck ships. What's wrong with them having naval fixed-wing aircraft capability, just like USMC?

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 11:26
by Corsair1963
hythelday wrote:
When you fight a war, you want it as unfair to the opponent as you can get. F-35Bs taking off from the boat will be closer to interdict targets in the north of North Korea, while F-35As and the rest of ROK AF will be busy with the targets in the immediate vicinity of own troops.



In addition to ship borne F-35B's. Don't forget they could also operate from "austere" forward bases.....Yet, you point about fighting fair is right on the money. As you want every advantage against you opponent as possible!

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 11:33
by hythelday
Corsair1963 wrote:
hythelday wrote:
When you fight a war, you want it as unfair to the opponent as you can get. F-35Bs taking off from the boat will be closer to interdict targets in the north of North Korea, while F-35As and the rest of ROK AF will be busy with the targets in the immediate vicinity of own troops.



In addition to ship borne F-35B's. Don't forget they could also operate from "austere" forward bases.....Yet, you point about fighting fair is right on the money. As you want every advantage against you opponent as possible!


Then can fly them off regular airfields for all I care. OR they could order F-35Cs for that sweet 100nm increase in range. OR they could put the kettle on and play the British card by having flat-top capable fighters in the Air Force . Whatever they do, they want more F-35s and they want a different variant because it offers more options and thus creates more problems for the opposing team.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 11:56
by tincansailor
..thks, Singapore!;.....India, only if Russia stumbles and provides 5Gen to Pakistan to bolster Iran in their fumbling around Syria, Israel, Lebanon. It seems unlikely that China would provide 5Gen to Pak adding a second Indian border with 5Gen and the US would have to help reestablish a technology balance of sorts for India, otherwise; Not!

[/quote]

Hum. Why don't you think China would sell J-31s to Pakistan? It would seem the best customers for J-31s would be Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. If not them whom? Trump just cut off Pakistani aid, and if it sticks will push them closer to China. Selling J-31s would further cement their ties. The prospects of India getting the F-35 are still murky, no matter what Pakistan gets. It's not likely India will get F-35s as long as their ties to Russia are so tight. Besides even if a deal was made right now with production schedules as they are India wouldn't get them for a decade.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 12:21
by weasel1962
hythelday wrote:Well I guess all those ROK Marines & USMC training amphib landings are a joke then. And their current and future LHDs & LSTs are meant to evacuate Pusan perimeter 1950-style, not for offensive ops. And US regularly sends carriers and gators to the region in order to NOT train for contingency. And F-35B first Wasp deployment WON'T be off the coast off Korea. :bang:

ROK has Marines as well as flat deck ships. What's wrong with them having naval fixed-wing aircraft capability, just like USMC?


The ROK Marines has been around since 1949. yet they somehow survived without the harrier but suddenly now need the B? Its different to order and operate 353 Bs as compared to just 6 just for air support which could be just as easily conducted from its fixed wing bases? You may think the ROKMC has the same ambit of operations as USMC, I will respectfully disagree with you there. Much the same way, I would respectfully disagree that 6 Bs operating off a 14k ton LHD would be similar to how the US LHDs would be able to operate it.Sure, the ROKMC can in theory invade any country it wants, just like the USMC, but in reality its not really how the ROKMC will be used.

Not saying the Bs can't do air support for the marines (which is ridiculous because that's exactly what the F-35B is designed to do). However, to have that niche capability in the context of the ROK is really strange in my opinion. The only justification I can think of which can't be done by the ROKAF is SLOC defence.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 12:30
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, your loosing the battle. The F-35B clearly has a many of advantages over non-STOVL Types.....Which, a number of the members have clearly pointed out.


Not a question of winning or losing to me. Just sharing my thought process. Don't expect everyone to agree to how I think.

The F-35B does indeed have a lot of advantages to non-STOVL types that I myself have argued for. However, in the context of Korea, I think it suffers from the same justifications when the F-35A is already procured and is cheaper to operate, The only role I can't see the A performing in the ROK context is SLOC defense. I haven't read any other role that the A (which is cheaper) can't do.

Example, in a battlefield context of 200km north to south (of North Korea), it would be ridiculous imo to argue that the B would be needed just to be 100km closer to the target. That kind of procurement justification would seem quite strange indeed.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 13:23
by sferrin
weasel1962 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, your loosing the battle. The F-35B clearly has a many of advantages over non-STOVL Types.....Which, a number of the members have clearly pointed out.


Not a question of winning or losing to me. Just sharing my thought process. Don't expect everyone to agree to how I think.

The F-35B does indeed have a lot of advantages to non-STOVL types that I myself have argued for. However, in the context of Korea, I think it suffers from the same justifications when the F-35A is already procured and is cheaper to operate, The only role I can't see the A performing in the ROK context is SLOC defense. I haven't read any other role that the A (which is cheaper) can't do.

Example, in a battlefield context of 200km north to south (of North Korea), it would be ridiculous imo to argue that the B would be needed just to be 100km closer to the target. That kind of procurement justification would seem quite strange indeed.


I would not be at all surprised to see Japan and SK get into the carrier business, in which case they'll be looking at the F-35B anyway.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 17:01
by loke
tincansailor wrote:
..thks, Singapore!;.....India, only if Russia stumbles and provides 5Gen to Pakistan to bolster Iran in their fumbling around Syria, Israel, Lebanon. It seems unlikely that China would provide 5Gen to Pak adding a second Indian border with 5Gen and the US would have to help reestablish a technology balance of sorts for India, otherwise; Not!



Hum. Why don't you think China would sell J-31s to Pakistan? It would seem the best customers for J-31s would be Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. If not them whom? Trump just cut off Pakistani aid, and if it sticks will push them closer to China. Selling J-31s would further cement their ties. The prospects of India getting the F-35 are still murky, no matter what Pakistan gets. It's not likely India will get F-35s as long as their ties to Russia are so tight. Besides even if a deal was made right now with production schedules as they are India wouldn't get them for a decade.

Why should India not get the F-35?

Look at Turkey with increasingly tight ties to Russia (they are buying S-400s now) and still they remain not just an F-35 customer but F-35 partner!

If Turkey is going to remain an F-35 partner I see no reason why India cannot purchase a few F-35B (or C). The more the merrier.

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.).

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 17:07
by hythelday
weasel1962 wrote:
hythelday wrote:Well I guess all those ROK Marines & USMC training amphib landings are a joke then. And their current and future LHDs & LSTs are meant to evacuate Pusan perimeter 1950-style, not for offensive ops. And US regularly sends carriers and gators to the region in order to NOT train for contingency. And F-35B first Wasp deployment WON'T be off the coast off Korea. :bang:

ROK has Marines as well as flat deck ships. What's wrong with them having naval fixed-wing aircraft capability, just like USMC?


The ROK Marines has been around since 1949. yet they somehow survived without the harrier but suddenly now need the B? Its different to order and operate 353 Bs as compared to just 6 just for air support which could be just as easily conducted from its fixed wing bases? You may think the ROKMC has the same ambit of operations as USMC, I will respectfully disagree with you there. Much the same way, I would respectfully disagree that 6 Bs operating off a 14k ton LHD would be similar to how the US LHDs would be able to operate it.Sure, the ROKMC can in theory invade any country it wants, just like the USMC, but in reality its not really how the ROKMC will be used.

Not saying the Bs can't do air support for the marines (which is ridiculous because that's exactly what the F-35B is designed to do). However, to have that niche capability in the context of the ROK is really strange in my opinion. The only justification I can think of which can't be done by the ROKAF is SLOC defence.


They don't "suddenly need" STOVL aircraft. They know that F-35B can be operated from their 14k class LHD and offers additional capabilities. By now it has been established that F-35B isn't your regular strike aircraft. It's a 5th gen platform that offers all the benefits. It's a superb ISR platform, as well as a Electronic Attack capable aircraft. Harrier was not. Also, Harrier couldn't guide missiles launched from SSGs and DDGs. Can Hyunmoo-3 be upgraded with datalink? I don't know. But the way things are going with Kim right now, I can certainly say that ROK would want it to be. I know I would.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 17:09
by ricnunes
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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 18:20
by loke
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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 18:28
by botsing
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.

What kind of credibility do you have that you think we should even take this "fact" into consideration?

This reminds me a lot of my signature...

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 18:49
by ricnunes
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.


Please don't get me wrong but that "speech" sounds a bit like the usual conspiracy theorists speech/rhetoric (about Auroras, UFOs, etc...).
But even if that "ultra-classified" US aircraft really exists, I believe that it wouldn't exist in sufficient numbers to make it tactically relevant or even strategically relevant.
Numbers have a strength of its own so I believe it's more than safe to say that there isn't and there won't be anything as advanced and at the same time tactically and strategically relevant as the F-35 for the next decades to come (since literally thousands of F-35s will fly within the US and Allied Air Forces)

loke wrote: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.


If look at every non-NATO country that currently are known to purchase and/or will be authorized to buy the F-35, there's something in common with ALL and every of these countries - They are very, very close allies of the USA:
- Israel
- Japan
- South Korea
- Singapore (this one haven't decided to buy the F-35 yet but everything seems to point out that it is very interested in the F-35 and will be granted access to purchase it if or when the decision comes).

The same cannot be said about Saudi Arabia, UAE or India - None of these often mentioned countries can be considered as close allies of the USA as the ones mentioned above.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 20:14
by tincansailor
I would not be at all surprised to see Japan and SK get into the carrier business, in which case they'll be looking at the F-35B anyway.

[/quote]

Japan yes, ROK no. Carriers are for power projection. It's not likely the ROK Navy will be operating more then a couple of hundred miles from their national territory. Well within the range of land based air cover. Their primary missions are ASW, and amphibious operations. As long as there are USMC, and ROK Marines the NKPA will have to keep large numbers of first class ground units sitting in coastal areas, protecting major ports, and away from the DMZ. ROK aircraft carriers won't really add to that.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 21:32
by sferrin
tincansailor wrote:Japan yes, ROK no. Carriers are for power projection. It's not likely the ROK Navy will be operating more then a couple of hundred miles from their national territory. Well within the range of land based air cover. Their primary missions are ASW, and amphibious operations. As long as there are USMC, and ROK Marines the NKPA will have to keep large numbers of first class ground units sitting in coastal areas, protecting major ports, and away from the DMZ. ROK aircraft carriers won't really add to that.


"The report of Japanese interest in upgrading the Izumos was followed hard by reports from South Korea suggesting an interest on the part of Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) on modifying the Dokdo class amphibious assault ships to carry the F-35B, as well. At 14,000 tons, the Dokdos are considerably smaller than the Izumos, and consequently not nearly as capable. Dokdo, first of the class, would have to undergo significant reconstruction in order to operate the F-35B, and even the second ship of the class (currently under construction) would require heavy revision. That said, the 15,000 ton Spanish Principe de Asturius carried 12 AV-8B Harriers in her day. The Dokdos would probably lose any amphibious capabilities in their conversion, however."

https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/who-wan ... uth-korea/


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

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 21:46
by ricnunes
For what's worth and about South Korea I would like to point out that South Korea frequently participated and participates in many international military operations or resuming, overseas deployments seem to be a norm within RoK Armed Forces so with this in mind I would say that F-35Bs on Assault Ships ("Light Carriers") could be useful.

In the link below, more precisely in the Overseas deployments lists international military operations in which the RoK Armed Forces participated in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_ ... med_Forces

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 21:56
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:For what's worth and about South Korea I would like to point out that South Korea frequently participated and participates in many international military operations or resuming, overseas deployments seem to be a norm within RoK Armed Forces so with this in mind I would say that F-35Bs on Assault Ships ("Light Carriers") could be useful.

In the link below, more precisely in the Overseas deployments lists international military operations in which the RoK Armed Forces participated in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_ ... med_Forces


I would really like to see Japan and South Korea go in together on a carrier class. Maybe it would help them both put the past in the past.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2018, 22:05
by neptune
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.
:)

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2018, 01:37
by nutshell
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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2018, 03:47
by citanon
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:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2018, 04:35
by Corsair1963
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:

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2018, 06:24
by neptune
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: ).
:)

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2018, 07:44
by weasel1962
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....

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2018, 13:28
by hythelday
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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2018, 13:38
by ricnunes
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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2018, 14:10
by weasel1962
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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2018, 16:07
by ricnunes
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...

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2018, 16:25
by steve2267
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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2018, 17:05
by ricnunes
Ok, I see. Thanks for the heads up steve2267

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2018, 19:24
by neptune
....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
:)

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2018, 10:20
by tincansailor
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.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2018, 10:41
by spazsinbad
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

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2018, 11:48
by tincansailor
spazsinbad wrote: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



Sorry missed the article. I'm surprised a helicopter carrier would have elevators so large, and powerful. I also assume the Hanger Deck is equally accommodating? Still seems strange to me that SK would want to order not more then 20 F-35Bs, unless they plan to base a number of squadrons ashore. This doesn't sound like a small investment. ROK Marines must have more influence then I thought.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2018, 13:18
by arian
Not going to happen. NK waters is going to be mined or sub-risk. You won't want to send a LHD with just 6 F-35Bs just for that when its easier and safer to just send many more F-35As across the 200km northwards into NK (or less once GBU-39/53s ranges are factored in).

There's really only 1 reason imho why Bs would be useful for South Korea and that's SLOC defense.


Operating against North Korea doesn't mean getting into North Korean waters. Mines are not going to be very effective 200nm off shore, and neither are mini-subs or most diesel subs. Just too much area to cover with too slow boats.

In any case I kind of agree with you that carriers (mini) and F-35Bs are not needed against North Korea. But I also agree with others that South Korea can afford it, and hence no reason not to do it.

Looking at ROK's Navy, I get the feeling North Korea isn't their main concern :wink: Nork rust buckets and fishing trawlers probably don't require 18 modern large diesel submarines, 9 large air-defense destroyers, and 4 resupply ships (along with dozens of smaller vessels which would be more suited towards the Nork threat). That's a large enough navy to take on Russia, not North Korea. Everyone knows why these boats are there and who the threat is in the Pacific.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2018, 14:07
by sferrin
tincansailor wrote:Sorry missed the article. I'm surprised a helicopter carrier would have elevators so large, and powerful. I also assume the Hanger Deck is equally accommodating? Still seems strange to me that SK would want to order not more then 20 F-35Bs, unless they plan to base a number of squadrons ashore. This doesn't sound like a small investment. ROK Marines must have more influence then I thought.


Not if you thought you might have to handle a CH-47 or -53 in a pinch.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2018, 16:32
by steve2267
Wikipedia states that Dokdo-class is able to support UH-1N, MH-60P, or Super Lynx. Lynx is 12.4' high, but UH-60 series is 16'10" high. F-35 is 14'2" high. It would appear height of the hangar deck is not an issue. Good call on the elevators, but as spaz pointed out, they have already been sized for that.

Seems that someone in the ROK Navy had an eye towards the future when they spec'd out the Dokdo class.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2018, 19:28
by spazsinbad
Asian Carriers By the Numbers
29 Aug 2013 Kyle Mizokami

"...The aircraft carrier building spree has been highlighted by the recent turn in world attention to Asia. Reports characterizing the development of these ships as an “arms race” miss an important point: although there has been a considerable ramping up of tensions in Asia among its major powers, construction of all of these vessels predates such tension. The construction of carriers could be considered a logical expansion of seapower by the nations involved, especially those whose economies rely on overseas commerce...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2013/08/29/asian- ... he-numbers

IMDEX Asia: South Korea Constructing Second LPH
14 May 2017 Shephard Media

"...The new LPH, expected to launch in April 2018 as ROKS Marado, will measure 199.4m in length and 31m in beam. These dimensions confirm the ship is the same size as ROKS Dokdo, although the design will feature improvements based on first-of-class experience....

...A graphic released by DAPA showed landing spaces for five aircraft on the flat-top's flight deck. Interestingly, the image showed Bell Boeing V-22 Ospreys aboard the ship, even though there has been no formal announcement that South Korea is interested in the tiltrotor. One anticipated improvement is the ability to accommodate Ospreys on a reinforced flight deck and enlarged hangar bay...."

Source: http://www.ausa.myindustrytracker.com/e ... second-lph


Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2018, 19:31
by neptune
arian wrote:...There's really only 1 reason imho why Bs would be useful for South Korea and that's SLOC defense...
Looking at ROK's Navy, I get the feeling North Korea isn't their main concern :wink: .... 18 modern large diesel submarines, 9 large air-defense destroyers, and 4 resupply ships (along with dozens of smaller vessels which would be more suited towards the Nork threat).... Everyone knows why these boats are there and who the threat is in the Pacific.


....Yes, IMHO, this build up is two fold;
1 - to insure SK ability to defend the SK maritime economy with the world, SLOC defense.
2 - to maintain technical compatibility/ support with their allies (other maritime economies/ militaries). Not all of SK's threats are "rust buckets", as you indicated. (a defense 2% GNP is not as difficult as Germany contends, while depending on the other 2% EU/ NATO members)
:)

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2018, 06:44
by spazsinbad
South Korean delegation presses for F-35 MRO&U contracts
28 Mar 2018 Garrett Reim

"A South Korean official [chairman of South Korean's parliamentary defence committee, Kim Hack-yong] on 28 March pressed the US Department of Defense to grant maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade contracts for the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lighting II to Korean companies during a speech at a roll-out ceremony in Fort Worth, Texas....

...Hack-yong also said that he was concerned with the delays and slow pace of delivery of weapons systems ordered by South Korea. It was not clear from his speech specifically which weapons systems he was referring to.

South Korea's first F-35A was delivered about 3.5 years after the country ordered 40 aircraft in a deal worth $7 billion. When the deal was signed in September 2014, South Korea expected to take delivery of the first F-35A this year, suggesting the programme is on track...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... tr-447174/

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2018, 17:54
by spazsinbad
Who would want to do business with South Korea, Canada or India, what a nightmare; but that is the way it is these days.
South Korea’s F-35 purchase under probe
20 Apr 2018 Jeff Jeong

"SEOUL, South Korea — Despite the celebrated rollout of the first F-35 Lightning II fighter jet for the South Korean Air Force last month, the fifth-generation stealth aircraft is not widely welcomed by the Seoul government. The contract of procuring 40 F-35As signed under the former Park Geun-hye administration has been under intensive investigation with regard to possible influence-peddling over the Lockheed Martin-built multirole fighter’s selection process and price lobbying. The Board of Audit and Inspection of Korea, or BAI, has widened its probe against the F-35 selection from Seoul’s 2014 F-X III competition, according to defense sources.... [much more blah blah blah at the URL]

...A Lockheed Martin spokesperson pointed out that the price contract was signed between the governments of Korea and the United States. “Any price contract was made between the two governments under the FMS, so we’re not in a position to comment,” the spokesperson told Defense News. DAPA spokesman Kang said he could not reveal the contents of the revised F-35 contract, but added that “the price fixing is true.”

Some local experts believe the probe into the F-35 deal could have a negative impact on the Air Force’s plan of introducing 20 more F-35As. “As inter-Korean relations begin to thaw, the military leadership keeps a low key on weapons procurement programs such as the F-35,” said Kim Dae-young, a research fellow at Korea Research Institute for National Strategy. “In the meantime, the probe into the previous F-35 acquisition could affect new procurement plans.”

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/04 ... der-probe/

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2018, 06:30
by spazsinbad
Marine Corps mulls new transport ship, UAVs to reinforce amphibious capabilities
12 Sep 2018 YONHAP

"SEOUL, Sept. 12 (Yonhap) -- The Marine Corps is considering introducing a large transport ship capable of carrying warplanes, and mobilizing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to enhance its amphibious operations and surveillance capabilities, its chief said Wednesday.

During his keynote speech at a security seminar, Lt. Gen. Jun Jin-goo also expressed his desire to capitalize on robotics and other cutting-edge technologies to enhance the marines' maritime power projection capabilities. "We are considering building the LPX (large platform experimental)-type ship capable of carrying aircraft in close cooperation with the Navy," Jun said.

He did not specify what aircraft will be carried by the envisioned ship. But observers say that the commander might have in mind the F-35B, a short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the U.S.-made radar-evading fighter. The Marine Corps appears to want to secure its own LPX ship apart from the 14,000-ton Dokdo amphibious landing ship and the Marado warship, which are currently in operation and under construction, respectively...."

Source: http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/20 ... 00315.html

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2018, 23:18
by spazsinbad
Helo carrier Dokdo, F-35B prospects https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYGo9xhz5-o


Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2019, 05:57
by spazsinbad
Two stealth jets to arrive in Korea by March
14 Jan 2019 Park Ji-won

"Two F-35A stealth fighter aircraft will be delivered to South Korea from the U.S. by the end of March, a military source said Sunday. "Two F-35As out of 10, which the Air Force will receive this year, will arrive in South Korea by the end of March. They will be deployed by around April or May," a source familiar with the matter said. The source said two aircraft will arrive every month and up to 10 stealth fighters will be handed over by the end of the year. The Air Force will possibly complete their deployment during the same time. By the end of 2018, the Air Force had taken over six F-35As for training at Arizona's Luke Air Force Base in the U.S....

...The planes will a stop in Hawaii and Guam, and also be refueled by U.S. air tankers...."

Source: https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation ... 61946.html

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 07:24
by spazsinbad
South Korean consortium chosen as F-35 maintenance partner
12 Feb 2019 YONHAP

"SEOUL, Feb. 12 (Yonhap) -- A consortium of six South Korean firms has been selected as a partner for the maintenance of the U.S.-made radar-evading F-35 fighter, Seoul's state arms procurement agency said Tuesday. The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said that Ellen M. Lord, the U.S. undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, has notified it that the consortium has been chosen in the U.S. government's partner selection program.

The consortium, called Team ROK, consists of Hanwha Systems, Hanwha Corp., Hanwha Techwin, Korean Air, LIG Nex1 and Hyundai Glovis. ROK stands for South Korea's official name, Republic of Korea. It will take charge of repair and maintenance work in avionics, electromechanical and egress sections, DAPA said...."

Source: https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20190212009700315

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 09:49
by spazsinbad
Four more F-35A stealth fighters to arrive in S. Korea this week
19 Aug 2019 YONHAP news agency

"SEOUL, Aug. 19 (Yonhap) -- Four more F-35A fighter jets are scheduled to arrive in South Korea later this week, military sources said Monday, which will bring the total number of the stealth fighters in the country's Air Force to eight. The fifth-generation radar-evading warplanes, manufactured by the U.S. defense firm Lockheed Martin, are set to arrive at the 17th Fighter Wing in Cheongju, 140 kilometers south of Seoul, as early as Thursday, according to the sources.

So far, four F-35As have arrived here -- two in March and the rest in July, under Seoul's plan to deploy a total of 40 stealth fighters through 2021. By the end of this year, 10 F-35As are to arrive in South Korea, according to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA)….

The fighters can fly at a top speed of Mach 1.8 [hubbahubba] and carry top-of-the-line weapons systems, such as joint direct attack munitions...."

Source: https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20190819005200325

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 16:08
by sprstdlyscottsmn
While I have no doubt the F-35A can reach 1.8M, that is a typo I am sure.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 17:05
by wrightwing
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:While I have no doubt the F-35A can reach 1.8M, that is a typo I am sure.

I think the confusion comes from when folks see the 1,200mph/ M1.6 vs the F-18s speed bring listed as 1,190mph/M1.8.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 18:19
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Yeah, CAS/TAS/Mach changes with altitude can trip up a LOT of people.

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2019, 09:31
by spazsinbad
S. Korea celebrates 71st Armed Forces Day, showcases F-35A jets to public for first time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1AjU4q92Qg


Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2019, 18:39
by spazsinbad
South Korea to buy 20 more F-35 jets [20 Apr '18 viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24682&p=393103&hilit=probe#p393103 ]
10 Oct 2019 Jeff Jeong

"SEOUL — South Korea will begin the second phase of its plan to acquire stealthy fighter jets, code-named F-X III, by acquiring 20 more F-35s, the country’s arms procurement agency has confirmed. The Asian economic power had ordered 40 F-35As for Air Force operations under a 2014 deal worth about $6.4 billion, with the delivery of the fifth-generation fighters starting earlier this year. “The government is preparing to launch the second phase of the F-X III in 2021 for the five years to come,” the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, or DAPA, said in a report to the National Assembly on Oct. 7. About $3.3 billion will go toward buying the additional Lockheed Martin-made aircraft, the report noted.

Which F-35 variant is under consideration has been a point of debate here, though multiple defense sources say the government will buy the F-35A rather than the "B" variant because of the former’s short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing capability. The STOVL ability allows the aircraft to take off and land from South Korea’s new large-deck landing ship planned for deployment in the 2030s. “The state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, or KIDA, has concluded a study on the additional acquisition of F-35 aircraft, and the study is to suggest the introduction of more F-35As be more feasible,” a source at the Ministry of National Defense told Defense News on the condition of anonymity.

In July, the South Korean military approved a plan to construct a carrier-type landing platform helicopter ship as part of its long-term force buildup plan. The new vessel is to be refit [? not appropriate word] to displace 30,000 tons, double the capacity of the previous two types with 14,500 tons of displacement. “There are two issues [with getting] the F-35B. First, it’s more expensive than the conventional-takeoff-and-landing version. Second, the deployment of a carrier-type landing ship is far away from now,” the source said....

...The F-35A can fly at a top speed of Mach 1.8 [hubbahubba we have a MEME or is it a miniMEME] and carry top-of-the-line weapons systems such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition...."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia ... f-35-jets/

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2019, 20:07
by spazsinbad
Perhaps this is why South Korea is not buying F-35Bs. IF graphics correct then conventional carriers are on the horizon?
These are the two aircraft carrier designs South Korea is considering
11 Oct 2019 ALERT5

"Two aircraft carrier solutions are being studied by South Korea’s military. The first is a 70,000 ton design that can carry 32 fighters along with 8 helicopters while the second design is 40,000 with 12 fighters and 8 helicopters. The bigger ship will require nearly 1400 personnel to operate while the smaller vessel requires halve the manpower."

Graphic: "Choi Jae-sung’s office" https://thumb.mt.co.kr/06/2019/10/20191 ... 4381_1.jpg


Source: http://alert5.com/2019/10/11/these-are- ... more-78567

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2019, 20:36
by spazsinbad
Given the story a few posts above about 'buying 20 more F-35s' which is apparently 'NOTED IN THE REPORT' what is this retorter saying here when making inquiries to BOING!? Why not ask LM?
ADEX: ROKAF F-35As in show debut amid order talk
14 Oct 2019 Greg Waldron

"The Lockheed Martin F-35A appears likely to secure a 20 aircraft follow up order from Seoul, as the type makes its ADEX debut in the livery of the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF)….

...Last week, official news agency Yonhap reported that Seoul’s Defence Acquisition Program Administration will earmark W4 trillion ($3.4 billion) to obtain 20 new fighters from 2021, as a continuation of the previous F-X III competition.

During a pre-show media briefing, Korean defence official Lee Sangcheol had this to say about the F-35A’s chances in the potential 20-jet deal: “I cannot clearly confirm it yet, but that's the way I think it will unfold. That is my personal opinion.”

Reports in Korea have suggested that the F-35A is all but guaranteed to be selected....

...F-X III was originally for 60 aircraft, but when the F-35A decision was announced the number ordered was 40.

When contacted by FlightGlobal, Boeing indicated that it is also potentially interested in the deal. “We look forward to working with [DAPA] and the Republic of Korea Air Force, as they review requirements for a next generation fighter. The Boeing F-15’s payload, performance and persistence make it a compelling option for Korea’s next generation fighter force structure, as is evidenced by the significant investment in the platform by air forces around the world," it says."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... lk-461463/

Re: South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2019, 21:01
by spazsinbad
This is more like it - some argybargy about which model of F-35 to be purchased - not some damned BOING! crap as above. :twisted: NAH BOING! make good stuff for those unable to buy the F-35 - the FightGlobular retorter must be ????? :roll:
More F-35 Fighters for South Korea
11 Oct 2019 Jon Lake

"South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration has announced that 20 more Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters will be procured under the second phase of its F-X3 program, due to be launched in 2021, when deliveries of the first batch of 40 are scheduled to be completed....

...It remains uncertain as to which version of the Lightning II will be procured under the new phase of the program, which is valued at 4 trillion won ($3.35 billion). There were press reports that the National Security Office of the Blue House (the president's residence) had pushed the Air Force in April to consider purchasing the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing F-35B, presumably to allow them to operate from the Navy’s two 14,500-tonne Dokdo-class amphibious assault ships, a planned 30,000-tonne carrier-type landing platform helicopter carrier, or more likely from a new class of aircraft carrier.

The Blue House immediately denied that it had tried to influence the F-35 purchase, pointing out that there was “a legal procedure for any procurement project.”...

...South Korean media has recently reported that the purchase of aircraft carriers is “under consideration” by the National Assembly’s National Defense Commission. It was reported that one option under consideration is a 70,000-tonne twin-island design with a length of 298 meters and a width of 75 meters, carrying 40 fixed-wing aircraft and eight helicopters. This is similar in size and configuration to the new 72,000-tonne British Queen Elizabeth class, which is 280 meters long. The other option reportedly being considered by South Korea is smaller—40,000 tonnes, 238 meters long and 62 meters wide—and is intended to embark an air wing composed of 20 fixed-wing aircraft and eight helicopters. This is broadly similar to the U.S. Navy’s 45,000-tonne America-class Landing Helicopter Assault ships, which can carry up to 20 USMC F-35Bs.

While these ship programs would indicate a Korean requirement for the F-35B, the state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA) suggested that the introduction of more F-35As might be “more feasible," while the RoKAF itself is understood to favor the F-35A,..."

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... outh-korea