Forum: General F-35 Forum

popcorn wrote:

Maybe the Koreans are reconsidering the M1.6 and external carriage requirements?

No, the other guys(Boeing and EADS Cassidian) would protest because that would amount to changing the rule of the game in the middle. The RFP documents were already issued, and everyone must play by the same rule.

Heck, even the opposition party lawmakers are asking why F-35 is even in the contest since it wouldn't be able to meet the delivery deadline of 2016 and the IOC deadline of 2017. The PAK-FA pulled out for the same reason, and so should the F-35.

Quote:

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 remains an option as an off-the-shelf, “5th generation” fighter. Korea’s relaxation of stealth and internal weapon carriage requirements has certainly helped its competition.

The Korean government agency did this for the EADS because EADS was offering a 95% tech transfer and the right to reuse the Typhoon's parts and source code in KFX. But this rule change favoring the Typhoon was made before the RFP document issue as the result of EADS's lobbying effort, and LM too should have lobbied for the relaxation of top speed and external pylon issues before the RFP issue as well. LM has the worst marketing team, probably even worse than Saab's.

Quote:

If DAPA places enough weight on stealth

Stealth is not an evaluation criterion. Heck the performance doesn't even matter much, the tech transfer and price do. There is a secret internal price ceiling where all bids above $8 billion(for the jets, initial spares, and simulators) will be automatically rejected and the whole contest cancelled if no bidder comes up with a bid below $8 billion but that's unlikely due to the presence of Saab and Boeing in the contest.

Since LM bid $8 billion for Japan's 40 jets, you can tell the F-35's chances are low in Korea.

Quote:

The only question for Lockheed is whether the threat of North Korean missile barrages makes their F-35B Short Take-Off/ Vertical Landing variant part of the bid

LM's offering F-35A.

Quote:

Even as the program’s lateness, likely near-term production cuts, and resulting cost hikes for early buyers, give potential buyers pause.

Since the KFX enters volume production in 2021, the final FX unit must be delivered by 2020 in order not to overlap with the KFX introduction. They do not have the time to wait for new jet and must have combat-ready F-4/F-5 replacement delivered to them by 2016 at the latest.

This is why the Korean government is asking for 10 units to be delivered by 2016, which makes LM's pricing noncompetitive because F-35's pricing will remain expensive until the production ramp up scheduled in 2018.

F-16.net Sponsor

SpudmanWP wrote:

I think these were the picks you were thinking of.

While the lower spot "may" (not likely) be a 1k JDAM, the accompanying docs (made by Boeing) clearly state them as "Mk-82" JDAMs (eg a 500 lb weapon).

The discrepancy from what Boeing first came out with and what they presented the Koreans is simple to explain: The original 500/1000 combo was reduced to AMRAAM/500 when they actually did some design and testing on the loads and space limitations involved.

Well, that settles it. There goes the F-15s transonic accelleration. Look at that frontal cross section. Rolling Eyes

sewerrat wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

I think these were the picks you were thinking of.

While the lower spot "may" (not likely) be a 1k JDAM, the accompanying docs (made by Boeing) clearly state them as "Mk-82" JDAMs (eg a 500 lb weapon).

The discrepancy from what Boeing first came out with and what they presented the Koreans is simple to explain: The original 500/1000 combo was reduced to AMRAAM/500 when they actually did some design and testing on the loads and spae limitations involved.

Well, that settles it. There goes the F-15s transonic accelleration. Look at that frontal cross section. Rolling Eyes

Look at the F-35's!! Wink

sewerrat wrote:

Well, that settles it. There goes the F-15s transonic accelleration. Look at that frontal cross section. Rolling Eyes

The Silent Eagle's frontal cross section is no different from a clean Strike Eagle. And no one complains about the acceleration of the Strike Eagle.

slowman2 wrote:

sewerrat wrote:

Well, that settles it. There goes the F-15s transonic accelleration. Look at that frontal cross section. Rolling Eyes

The Silent Eagle's frontal cross section is no different from a clean Strike Eagle. And no one complains about the acceleration of the Strike Eagle.

Source?? I suspect the CWBs are very similar to the old CFTs, but I'm not sure if it's really the same exterior profile. If it is, I suspect the SE will be able to out-accelerate the F-35 easily.

southernphantom wrote:

I suspect the CWBs are very similar to the old CFTs, but I'm not sure if it's really the same exterior profile. If it is, I suspect the SE will be able to out-accelerate the F-35 easily.

Of course the Silent Eagle outflies F-35. Just about every existing fighter jet does, including F-16, F/A-18, etc.

The only one slower than the F-35 is the Super Hornet.

Really? Acceleration of F-35 surpasses or at least matches every fighter out there given a realistic weapons load and fuel load due to clean configuration and decent thrust to weight ratio. The only thing that's better in that regard is the F-22 IIRC.

The reason I suspect Typhoon will not make it is the technology of the motors are not commensurate with the level of technology they would like to attain with the KFX program. At least the Gripen NG gets them closer in the key aspects of ECM and low observability technology.

tacf-x wrote:

Really?

Yes really.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16745.html

madrat wrote:

The reason I suspect Typhoon will not make it is the technology of the motors are not commensurate with the level of technology they would like to attain with the KFX program. At least the Gripen NG gets them closer in the key aspects of ECM and low observability technology.

They are not asking for ECM or even stealth. They already have them.

The FX-III asks for a list of 40 technologies, a drop from the list of 55 technologies from the FX-II. They ask less this time because they currently have 80% of the technologies needed for a 5th gen fighter excluding the engine(An off the shelf purchase, be it EJ220 or F414 EPE), and plan to fill the remaining 20% through the FX-III. The two most important technologies being asked for are the sensor fusion software and the AESA backend software(Korean AESA hardware itself is already operational, but the software development is lagging).

So as long as the vendor can provide the 40 specific technologies listed in the RFP document, they are good to go in the FX-III competition, even Saab.

They can ask for the sky, but it doesn't mean anyone will entertain their dream.

madrat wrote:

They can ask for the sky, but it doesn't mean anyone will entertain their dream.

There are two bidders, EADS and Saab, promising to hand over what they ask to make a sale. The fighter jet market condition is such that the buyer country could ask for the sky and get it. Heck, the EADS offered to fund 20% of KFX development cost(But the Korean government rejected because they offer the project share only to countries what plan to buy the units.) The Swedish government in support of Saab is offering to buy at least 10% of KFX production run and field them with the Swedish Airforce if Saab won FX-III and the KFX engineering consulting deal. What is Lockheed Martin offering by comparison? Nothing.

DAPA dropped stealth from the evaluation criteria while asking for an ability to fly above Mach 1.6 with external armament, which favors the Typhoon whiling potentially disqualifying the F-35 from the contest. This action alone will tell you whose bid DAPA has it in mind.

Lol, the comparison was made against clean configurations of the F-16 and F/A-18. Try hanging a full fuel load and 4000 lbs. of bombs on an F-16 THEN we'll see who can accelerate better!

tacf-x wrote:

Lol, the comparison was made against clean configurations of the F-16 and F/A-18. Try hanging a full fuel load and 4000 lbs. of bombs on an F-16 THEN we'll see who can accelerate better!

F-16 and F/A-18s on strike missions do not need to go supersonic; it is the A2A configured F-16s and F/A-18s that go supersonic to engage the enemy jet.

Accordingly, a fair comparison would be the acceleration of F-35, F-16, and F/A-18 each equipped with four AMRAAMs and two sidewinders.

Since F-35 can can carry only two AMRAAMs internally, two AMRAAMs and two sidewinders must be carried externally, and be even slower.

An update.

Boeing changed the base configuration of its offering in the Korean FX III contest from the Silent Eagle to F-15SA. The reason for this is that there is no need to worry about stealth based on their analysis of the RFP document, as the contest will be determined by the quality of tech transfer and prices offered by vendors, not the merits of respective candidate aircraft models.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 6e801bc2b7

Quote:

Boeing Refines Plans For Korea

A major rule change has opened FX-III up to new entrants, and to make things more interesting, Korea's Defense Acquisition Procurement Administration also wants bidders to include terms under which they would assist Korea in developing an indigenous KFX fighter. Responses to the request for proposals are due in mid-June and a decision should follow in late September or early October.

The big change is the elimination of a requirement for internal weapon bays, Boeing Military Aircraft vice-president for international business development Jeff Kohler said in Singapore on Monday. That requirement would have narrowed the field to two: the Joint Strike Fighter and Boeing's Silent Eagle.

Correction: Everything I've read states that the F-35 can currently carry 4 AAMs internally (2 per bay). Also, the F-35 is scheduled to be able to carry 6 total AAMs (3 per bay) by block 5 I believe.

slowman2 wrote:

tacf-x wrote:

Lol, the comparison was made against clean configurations of the F-16 and F/A-18. Try hanging a full fuel load and 4000 lbs. of bombs on an F-16 THEN we'll see who can accelerate better!

F-16 and F/A-18s on strike missions do not need to go supersonic; it is the A2A configured F-16s and F/A-18s that go supersonic to engage the enemy jet.

They don't need to go greater than 590nm in radius either. Put external fuel on the Hornet or Viper even in "air to air" configuration (and users always do) and again check your performance charts...

Quote:

Since F-35 can can carry only two AMRAAMs internally, two AMRAAMs and two sidewinders must be carried externally, and be even slower.

No, it can carry 4 AMRAAM's internally. One on each rail or pylon and there are growth options available for the carriage of additional internal weapons as the years go by.

Comparing an F-35 with 4 internal AMRAAM and 2x external AIM-9X and a full fuel load with a Hornet or Viper with the same load and enough external fuel to match the F-35's radius is the only way you'll get an accurate idea of performance differences between the types.

I'd suggest when real world drag figues of external weapons and fuel are taken into consideration, that the F-35 will comfortably out-perform either the Hornet or Viper of any variety you choose in the most important areas of air combat performance.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

We just lost a land called Korea!