South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

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

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 551
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 11:33

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.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

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

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 11:56

..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.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 12:21

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.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 12:30

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.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 13:23

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.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 17:01

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.).
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 551
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 17:07

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.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2148
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 17:09

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.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 18:20

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.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 18:28

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...
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2148
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 18:49

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.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

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

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 20:14

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.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 21:32

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.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2148
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 21:46

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
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 21:56

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.
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: marsavian and 13 guests