South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

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

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 04:36

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!
:)
Last edited by neptune on 03 Jan 2018, 08:12, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 05:42

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.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1624
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 06:10

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.
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 06:36

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.
Online

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5564
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 07:19

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......
Online

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5564
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 07:31

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?
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 08:20

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!
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 08:36

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.
:)
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1624
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 08:52

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.
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 09:47

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.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1624
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 10:36

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.
Online

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5564
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 11:15

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:
Online

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5564
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 11:19

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.
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 11:20

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?
Online

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5564
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 11:26

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!
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: usnvo and 18 guests