Forum: Program and politics

batu, in my personal view, it's probably the most prudent and feasible decision to go with an interim F-15K+ option and then fully re-evaluate the KF-X requirement and schedule.... and potential dual-platform mix such a KF-X requirement might entail. That would likely be the most economical, reliable and seamless approach.

But with respect to the 'F-15SE' per se, it's probably not a real-life option as currently envisaged. For one thing... many, many years and extensive funding would likely still be required to develop the canted V-tail into a mature piece of the design concept.

Boeing could have better proposed the F-15SE when it did, and accelerated in-house development as part of the strategy, sure... but the reality is that they might be better off offering a compromised advanced capability as reliable interim next-gen solution.

F-16.net Sponsor

Geogen, with all due respect, your answer to EVERYTHING in an "interim 4th gen+" solution. This is why you are were elected to the ABJ board.

geogen wrote:

batu, in my personal view, it's probably the most prudent and feasible decision to go with an interim F-15K+ option and then fully re-evaluate the KF-X requirement and schedule.... and potential dual-platform mix such a KF-X requirement might entail. That would likely be the most economical, reliable and seamless approach.

But with respect to the 'F-15SE' per se, it's probably not a real-life option as currently envisaged. For one thing... many, many years and extensive funding would likely still be required to develop the canted V-tail into a mature piece of the i sadesign concept.

Boeing could have better proposed the F-15SE when it did, and accelerated in-house development as part of the strategy, sure... but the reality is that they might be better off offering a compromised advanced capability as reliable interim next-gen solution.

Why should the Koreans spend on more F-15Ks when, in their own words, it's "outdated"?

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 03458.html

DAPA officials warned that Boeing may enter the FX-III race after minor upgrades to the F-15K, such as installing Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars, but the airplane’s stealth capability remains a crucial factor in deciding which new fighter jets will be purchased. “Boeing may compete in the FX-III race without having to complete its development of the CWB or canted vertical tails, but it should bear in mind that Korea is eyeing to acquire advanced jets, rather than outdated ones,” a senior DAPA official said.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Geogen, with all due respect, your answer to EVERYTHING in an "interim 4th gen+" solution. This is why you are were elected to the ABJ board.

As long as it's got an evolved targetting pod though. Can't address next gen threats with an existing Litening or Sniper XR pod, no sir. One simply can't have a leased 4.7775++ Gen fighter for your interim TACAIR RECAP plan without a slightly improved targetting pod...

Yep, incrementally improving current fighters to deal with next generation low observable fighter threats and advanced IADS at a cost of billions (and obtaining a lease on them if possible) whilst evaluating your requirements for the next 25 years until the FX-XX Mk 2 comes along is by far the most sensible plan.

Rolling Eyes

As someone else asked, what are SK's needs visa-vie this purchase? Is it Air Interdiction in the case of NK attack (bridges, SEAD, supply lines)? Airfields? Is it to strike NK's deeply dug-in artillery and C2 nodes? How important is pure air-to-air capability for this purchase? How important is CAS?

North Korea presents a unique challenge. The location of its massive hardened artillery is known by the south. Its undoubtedly well defended by multiple layers of SAM coverage. To actually kill this arty, deep penetrating bombs that really aren't in the F-35s internal (LO profile) arsenal are needed. And we are talking A LOT of artillery here. So the question is, can the F-15E (and F-16s), with jamming and SEAD, get the job done with acceptable (sustainable) losses? I don't know the answer to that. It seems to me though that a High-Mid mix of F-35s to provide deep SEAD and the F-15Es to do the heavy lifting would be the best solution.

For Air Interdiction missions, such as hitting NKs forward supply centers, bridges, columns of men and equipment on roads, which would be better? This work is going to be close to the FLOT (front). Therefore, the ability to penetrate multiple layers of air defense stealthfully isn't as critical. Precise, real-time data on target location is the key here. If this is achieved, the speed and pay-load of the F-15E make it a really good platform for this kind of work. So it becomes a C4ISR question. If loitering around and searching for targets is going to be the norm, the F-35's stealth and sensors give it a huge advantage. It's light payload are it's disadvantage. The F-15E's best attack profile for this kind of work is to be directed to a known target and use is tremendous low-level speed to attack and egress quickly. Loitering in search mode are not in its best interest. So again, it seems like the two platforms working in concert, data-linked together, would be the best bet.

For true CAS, neither is good. I give the nod to the F-15E though. Two engines, more payload, faster egress. Two sets of human eyes too which helps.

For pure air to air, again it depends on the mission. The F-35 should be tremendous in the offensive counter air role. This is not a good mission for the F-15 over North Korea due to the SAM threat. For defensive counter air, the F-15E is still very formidable. With AWACS support, it's probably more suited to the that job than the F-35. Unless that is, you are going to strap outboard missile onto the F-35. Then you could argue back and forth but it would largely be a wash.

Someone mentioned maritime patrolling earlier. Again a wash IMO. The Navy raves about the Super Hornet's ability to conduct maritime patrol duties due to how its AESA excels at providing a great picture of the surface environment. The F-15E's AESA (assuming SK gets the latest version) is even more powerful. Plus, again, there are advantages to having two humans in the cockpit and having a greater payload. There is no doubt the F-35 could perform this mission as well, but its stealth advantage really isn't needed here.

Redbird, I find myself agreeing with you. I think it would be more intelligent to replace the F-4Es with F-15K+ or what have you, and acquire a few squadrons of mature F-35s in the near future. The F-35s kick down the door, and the Beagles step on whatever survives.

On another note, I'd replace the hopelessly obsolete F-5s with F-4s as the Phantoms are replaced by F-15s. The RoKAF would look like this: F-15K, F-15K+, KF-16, and some F-4s. The latter two would be replaced at a later date by KF-X or F-35. My logic is that KF-16s are reasonably good, and F-4Es are excellent bomb trucks once the IADS has been knocked down.

My two cents on the current situation of Korean F-X tender.

The F-35 simply doesn't fit well with the Korean air warfare philosophy, which relies on 100 km+ stand-off strikes instead of F-117A/F-35 style stealthy infiltration strikes. Which is why the ROKAF invested heavily in development and production of glide bombs, in both locally developed 500 lbs KGGB and Boeing-developed 2,000 lbs JDAM-ER for the ROKAF requirements.

The ROKAF warplan calls for the suppression of the entire North Korean SAM capability within 3 days, and this cannot be achieved by the F-35As carrying two JDAMs and making 3 sorties a day; they need something like the F-15s loaded with 12 KGGBs or 20 SDBs making 6 sorties per day. This is possible because some 85% of North Korean targets including all of Pyongyang are accessible by the sea, where the KGGBs and JDAM-ERs could be released some 25 miles away from the North Korean coastline at a high altitude. This is why the ROKAF required that the F-35 be able to carry external ordinances and whu a jet with no internal ordinance capability was OK but no external ordinance capability was disqualified. Accordingly, the F-35 doesn't really fit the ROKAF's mission profile well and even a Typhoon maybe better suited to the ROKAF's airwar plan than the F-35 does.

The second issue is that the ROKAF requirements are budget and delivery-schedule critical. Unlike Japan, the DAPA buying the jets for the ROKAF is inflexible about the pricing; $[Link pending approval] billion for 60 jets is the hard ceiling and any bid that goes over $[Link pending approval] billion is disqualified. Considering how Lockheed Martin's Japan bid was $8 billion for 42 jets before the price estimation went up, the F-35 bid already went over the price hard ceiling and is automatically disqualified. The winning bidder also deliver 10 combat ready jets in 2016 and 12 a year thereafter to complete the delivery by 2020, a delivery schedule that the F-35 obviously cannot meet. The joke of town is that Lockeed Martin would have had a better luck with an F-16 Block 70 with a Silent Hornet style weapons pod than the F-35 in the Korean F-X III contest.

The third issue is the lack of technology transfer. Lockheed Martin vice president already confirmed to Korean press that Lockheed Martin's offset package included sub-contract work for the F-35, but spoke nothing about the technology transfer needed for the KFX. Which is once again a big no no in the eyes of DAPA officials. Lockheed Martin representatives didn't hide the fact to press that they were counting on the so called "US-Korea" military alliance to win the bid, not based on the quality and the strength of their bid package. Which is an odd thing to say because that only works as a "tie-breaker", and does not make an uncompetitive US-based bid win over a competitive non-US bid.

Anyhow, things are looking really bad for the F-35's chances in Korea. The DAPA officials concluded that Lockheed Martin's bids was unworkable and they wanted to drop the F-35 from the contest to speed up the bid evaluation process(Evaluating two candidates is faster than three candidates) but feared a lawsuit from Lockheed Martin, so they will make the final call after the bid re-submission. If the DAPA concludes that both Typhoon and F-35 bids are still uncompetitive, then they will skip the candidate evaluation process and immediately open a price and terms negociation with Boeing, whose bid is said to have met both the price and technology transfer requirements. So the presumtive winner of Korea's F-X III is the Silent Eagle, and only a much more competitive bid from either the EADS CASA and Lockheed Martin will change that.

One more thing to add about the F-35 test evaluation. The DAPA says their test terms are non-negotiable; either Lockheed Martin accept their term or the DAPA will not test the F-35 at all. Which is that Lockheed Martin either let the Korean test pilot monitor the F-35 in the chase plane in the air, or let them have access to telemetry data collected at the ground station while doing maneuvers requested by the ROKAF test staffs.

The DAPA is playing a hardball because they are willing(actually wanting) to drop the F-35 from the contest.

How could they have wanted to drop the evaluation phase yet say that LM must accept their terms?

Oh yea, more of Slowman's "facts" without sources.

SpudmanWP wrote:

How could they have wanted to drop the evaluation phase yet say that LM must accept their terms?

Well, read my post thoroughly.

"If the DAPA concludes that both Typhoon and F-35 bids are still uncompetitive, then they will skip the candidate evaluation process and immediately open a price and terms negociation with Boeing,"

1. If Lockheed Martin does not accept the DAPA's testing term, then LM is disqualified and dropped from the contest.

2. If EADS CASA, which has met other conditions but the price, fails to submit a bid at $[Link pending approval] billion in the bid resubmission, then the Typhoon too is dropped.

3. With both the F-35 and the Typhoon dropped, then the DAPA can proceed with a direct negotiation with Boeing. BTW, this "Will immediately begin negotiation with Boeing" statement came from the head of DAPA.

I stopped reading through your post because it stated a lot of "facts" without any sources.

My eyes were drawn to the bolded sections, as was your intent.

btw, Why do you limit the F-35 to two JDAMs and 3 sorties a day? It can hold 8x SDB/SPEAR3s internal and much more external once the IADS suppressed in the target area. With IADS not an issue (at least from the release point), an F-35A can carry 32 SDB-class bombs, 8-10 JSOW-class bombs, 6x2k JDAM class bombs, or 2x5k bunker busters (along with 4x2k JDAMS, JSOWS, or BRU-61s). In every class the F-35 out carries the F-15 (especially the F-15SE). Since the SK airfields are so close to NK targets (less than half the internal fuel range), the extra drag of externals will not cause the need of IFR.

On the sortie numbers, the USAF sortie rate is based on a 590nm combat range. Since Pyongyang is less than half that range (and the border less than 1/4 of that) from most SK airfields, the effective SK F-35A sortie rate would be much higher.

Not to be redundant, but the Koreans themselves consider the F-15K outdated. No one knows the threats and envisioned missions better than they and to their mind, they need the capabilities, notably stealth, in their new platform. Makes no sense at all to buy more Eagles. Now, in reality, the current legacy fleet won't disappear overnight with the arrival of the new jets, the latter should evenhelp improve their effectiveness. But it is clear that the ROKAF must make the investment in the new platform.

Some good critical and deeper analysis above on this topic.

To Spud: not sure if the 8x SDB config is planned for block III? Maybe cleared down the road for block IV buys? And if F-X III included a STOVL variant, that of course would likely imply 4x SDB/SPEAR internal carriage.

To Redbird: some very interesting views and thinking. I'm curious if you contemplate integrating a future VLO UCAV platform into the 'mix', eg, an F-15K+ co-working with semi-autonomous UCAV assets, those which could be doing most of the 'loitering'? I guess my view at the moment is that due to the completely changed circumstances in the F-X III realities (ie, schedule slips, uncertainty in performance and reliability, price uncertainty, uncertainty with F-15SE development work, etc, etc) that the fundamental strategy be cancelled and revised with an entirely new recap strategy.

Additionally, I'd be curious as to your opinion with respect to a 'split' KF-X strategy to possibly include a Two-phase (2 phase) approach: 1) transfer of tech / joint-development of a UCAV as part of Phase I (accelerated acquisition) and 2) a joint-developed manned 5th gen platform as part of a Phase II? Something like that. In that case, a concession might have to be accepted given the possible strategic realities at hand and accept something along the lines of a souped-up F-15K+ with latest COTS equipment as a fall-back? If anything, such F-15K+ could at least be incrementally retrofitted later with the CWB add-on capability (eg, F-15SE-lite).

To Slowman: interesting input and perspective. One might also consider in the SEAD requirements and contingencies to include intensive utilization of SLAM-ER and of course high use of HARM ordnance to counter/saturate hostile IADS threats? If so, then these are obviously externally launched and the F-15K/F-15K++ platform is already cleared for such ordnance loadout = more platforms suited to operate in such a deterrence capacity.

Lastly, somewhere in this discussion of 'revising F-X III' should arguably be: the new FA-50! Isn't that a new-bird on the block which can at least begin replacing F-5/F-4 as part of a stopgap role??

SpudmanWP wrote:

btw, Why do you limit the F-35 to two JDAMs and 3 sorties a day? It can hold 8x SDB/SPEAR3s internal and much more external once the IADS suppressed in the target area. With IADS not an issue (at least from the release point), an F-35A can carry 32 SDB-class bombs, 8-10 JSOW-class bombs, 6x2k JDAM class bombs, or 2x5k bunker busters (along with 4x2k JDAMS, JSOWS, or BRU-61s). In every class the F-35 out carries the F-15 (especially the F-15SE). Since the SK airfields are so close to NK targets (less than half the internal fuel range), the extra drag of externals will not cause the need of IFR.

Can the F-35 carry a 5k GBU-28? I thought the idea was to replace it with a newer 2k bunker buster, that does the same damage as a 5k GBU-28
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16122.html

Are you sure the F-35 out-carries the F-15E/F-15K? The F-35 may have internal bays but I'm pretty sure the F-15E can carry more ordinance by weight.

Forum: Program and politics

Korea threatens to disqualify F-35