Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?  
User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 10 hours ago) and read 10836 times:

As I predicted, it appears South Korea is in the final stages of picking between the F-35 and the F-15SE. DSCA notice has just been posted and is below. It appears South Korea is after 60 of either.

DSCA notice for F-35 is below:
http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-10.pdf

Quote:
Korea – F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft

WASHINGTON, April 3, 2013 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress March 29 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea for 60 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $10.8 billion.

The Government of the Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of (60) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft. Aircraft will be configured with the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines, and (9) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines are included as spares. Other aircraft equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by meeting the legitimate security and defense needs of an ally and partner nation. The Republic of Korea continues to be an important force for peace, political stability, and economic progress in North East Asia.

The proposed sale of F-35s will provide the Republic of Korea (ROK) with a credible defense capability to deter aggression in the region and ensure interoperability with U.S. forces. The proposed sale will augment Korea’s operational aircraft inventory and enhance its air-to-air and air-to-ground self-defense capability. The ROK’s Air Force F-4 aircraft will be decommissioned as F-35’s are added to the inventory. Korea will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this aircraft system and support will not negatively alter the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractors will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company in Fort Worth, Texas; and Pratt & Whitney Military Engines in East Hartford, Connecticut. This proposal is being offered in the context of a competition. If the proposal is accepted, it is expected that offset agreements will be required.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Korea involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, program management, and training over a period of 15 years. U.S. contractor representatives will be required in Korea to conduct Contractor Engineering Technical Services (CETS) and Autonomic Logistics and Global Support (ALGS) for after-aircraft delivery.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness resulting from this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

The F-15SE's notice is below:
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-11.pdf

Quote:
Korea – F-15 Silent Eagle Aircraft Support
WASHINGTON, April 3, 2013 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress March 29 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $2.408 billion.

The Republic of Korea has requested a possible hybrid case in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS). The proposed sale will include 60 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets, 60 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS), 60 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Targeting Systems, 60 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems, 132 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) secure radio with HAVE QUICK II, 69 Link-16 Terminals and spares, the Advanced Display Core Processor II, Joint Mission Planning System, various support equipment items, GEM-V GPS airborne receiver module, and communication security; software development/integration, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contract engineering and logistical personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $2.408 billion.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by meeting the legitimate security and defense needs of an ally and partner nation. The Republic of Korea continues to be an important force for peace, political stability, and economic progress in North East Asia.

The proposed sale will augment Korea’s operational aircraft inventory and enhance its air-to-air and air-to-ground self-defense capability, provide it with a credible defense capability to deter aggression in the region, and ensure interoperability with U.S. forces. The Republic of Korea Air Force’s F-4 aircraft will be decommissioned as F-15SEs are added to the inventory. Korea will have no difficulty absorbing this additional equipment and support into its inventory.

The proposed sale of equipment and support will not negatively alter the basic military balance in the region.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Korea involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews and support, program management, and training over a period of 15 years.

The prime contractor will be The Boeing Corporation in St Louis, Missouri. This proposal is being offered in the context of a competition. If the proposal is accepted, it is expected that offset agreements will be required.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness resulting from this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

Note that the F-15SE's notice is just for some of the equipment on the F-15SE, not the entire aircraft, as it is a hybrid of a direct commercial sale and government-to-government US foreign military sale. As such the DSCA notification to Congress is only for certain equipment that would have to be sold to South Korea to support the Silent Eagle sale.

83 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 7 hours ago) and read 10769 times:

F-35

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

F-15SE

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The estimated cost is $2.408 billion.

Just sayin.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 10755 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 1):
F-35

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

F-15SE

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The estimated cost is $2.408 billion.

Just sayin.

Did you not read the DSCA notice properly? One is for a complete aircraft with all supporting infrastructure (F-35). The other is for avionics and sensors for a separate commercial purchase of the airframe (F-15SE). So we know in the configuration that the Koreans are buying, 60 complete F-35's with support, spares and tools is $10.8 billion dollars. 60 complete sets of F-15SE avionics and sensors is $2.408 billion.

Yeah, really comparable; it's like comparing a car to a pineapple.  


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 4 hours ago) and read 10694 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
.....a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $2.408 billion.
Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The proposed sale will include 60 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets, 60 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS), 60 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Targeting Systems, 60 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems, 132 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) secure radio with HAVE QUICK II, 69 Link-16 Terminals and spares, the Advanced Display Core Processor II, Joint Mission Planning System, various support equipment items, GEM-V GPS airborne receiver module, and communication security; software development/integration, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contract engineering and logistical personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.


It's pretty clear what is included in the price. It's the planes along with everything else. Why are you in total denial of the facts in front of you?


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 845 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 3 hours ago) and read 10686 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
It's pretty clear what is included in the price. It's the planes along with everything else. Why are you in total denial of the facts in front of you?

You honestly think Boeing has offered to sell South Korea 60 F-15SEs including all the accessory equipment such as AESA radars, targeting pods, spares, training etc listed for 2.41 billion???????

Why would South Korea even bother to submit a second case for the F-35 if it was more than 4 times as expensive? I doubt South Korea could transfer the money fast enough and would probably fly the entire acquisition executive team to Boeing to celebrate!


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 10672 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
It's pretty clear what is included in the price. It's the planes along with everything else. Why are you in total denial of the facts in front of you?

Yeah, read the DSCA notice more carefully:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The Government of the Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of (60) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft. Aircraft will be configured with the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines, and (9) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines are included as spares. Other aircraft equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

Here, they are talking about complete aircraft (airframe, avionics, engines) and support.

Now, F-15SE:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The Republic of Korea has requested a possible hybrid case in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS). The proposed sale will include 60 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets, 60 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS), 60 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Targeting Systems, 60 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems, 132 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) secure radio with HAVE QUICK II, 69 Link-16 Terminals and spares, the Advanced Display Core Processor II, Joint Mission Planning System, various support equipment items, GEM-V GPS airborne receiver module, and communication security; software development/integration, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contract engineering and logistical personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $2.408 billion.

1. The DSCA notice says that the F-15SE will be bought using Direct Commercial Sales. Direct Commercial Sales does not require a DSCA notice! The sensors and avionics, however, do need the DSCA notice in this instance. Notice the very important phrase in what you quoted 'in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales'. This means that the notice does not include the airframes.
2. They are buying radars, targeting pods, IRST's, EW systems, radio's, avionics, and data links, plus support for that. End notice.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 10664 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
This means that the notice does not include the airframes.

You are probably right.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2038 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months ago) and read 10599 times:

I'll put my money on the F-35. As much as I'd like to see South Korea go for the F-15SE, the F-35 suits them well against North Korea in both AA and AG roles. With the F-35, South Korea would have a potent first strike capability to the point where it would decrease their dependence on allied forces for protection.


No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2074 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10513 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
You are probably right.

Other sources confirmed that he is. They also speculate that the total price of the SE will probably be lower than the F-35. How much lower? Boeing is not saying. Guessing that because it is a DCS, negotiation may still be in progress. Also the F-35 price is not yet fixed either.

Still, there are some differences that make the comparison not "apples to apples". As Korea already operates F-15's, there are some tooling, testing and infrastructure already exisited an would not be needed in the new order.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10400 times:

The other issue it timing. With the F-35 not being fully combat capable nor fully developed till 2019 at the earliest, would that have an influence? I bet the F-15SE is available sooner than that, but it's just a guess.

User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4782 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10328 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 8):
They also speculate that the total price of the SE will probably be lower than the F-35. How much lower? Boeing is not saying.

At their launch claim of $100M per frame, 60 Silent Eagles would cost an even $6.0B. DCS could probably lower that some more...or SK could negotiate with Boeing to develop and implement say, the canted tails and other stealth enhancing features for the original amount. For sixty airframes and being a loyal customer, the RoKAF have enough leverage to drive a hard bargain...what with the F-35 there to ensure keen pricing. Then just add the $2.4B for a nice $8.4B total...though $40M each plane for those things still seems a bit steep.

More than price, this tender will likely be decided on South Korea's desire to also have something to keep the J-20 and T-50 at bay later on.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © goneless
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ivan Voukadinov - BGspotters


Whether the SE will be up to the task is the big question.....

.
http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/...12/12/tumblr_m7tpblACnJ1qhagdx.jpg.


Of course, the jury is still out on that too wrt the Lightning II.....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ja676MG45Zg/TAces_OZORI/AAAAAAAADkE/M5cwyMEqgME/s1600/f-35-taxiing-12.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ja676MG45Z...wyMEqgME/s1600/f-35-taxiing-12.jpg


Then, there's the political angle  spin .

[Edited 2013-04-04 13:49:30]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10310 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 10):
At their launch claim of $100M per frame, 60 Silent Eagles would cost an even $6.0B. DCS could probably lower that some more...or SK could negotiate with Boeing to develop and implement say, the canted tails and other stealth enhancing features for the original amount. For sixty airframes and being a loyal customer, the RoKAF have enough leverage to drive a hard bargain...what with the F-35 there to ensure keen pricing. Then just add the $2.4B for a nice $8.4B total...though $40M each plane for those things still seems a bit steep.

More than price, this tender will likely be decided on South Korea's desire to also have something to keep the J-20 and T-50 at bay later on.....

I would also argue that the South Koreans will need to think of their future fleet as well; right now they intend on replacing their fleet of F-4 Phantoms. South Korea has a large number of F-16's that will eventually need replacement in the future, so they will need to think of the future in their fleet planning.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10247 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
I would also argue that the South Koreans will need to think of their future fleet as well; right now they intend on replacing their fleet of F-4 Phantoms. South Korea has a large number of F-16's that will eventually need replacement in the future, so they will need to think of the future in their fleet planning.

Does SK want to run the risk of F-35 being fully developed as per schedule? SK is in conflict with a country that has only recently had a change of leader, one whose actions cannot easily be predicted. Why not select whatever can enter service the sooner (SE) and replace the F-16's with F-35 further down the line?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3404 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10237 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting art (Reply 12):
Does SK want to run the risk of F-35 being fully developed as per schedule? SK is in conflict with a country that has only recently had a change of leader, one whose actions cannot easily be predicted. Why not select whatever can enter service the sooner (SE) and replace the F-16's with F-35 further down the line?

clear logic has no place in military procurement especially when threatened.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10013 times:

At the rate the North Koreans are escalating their rhetoric, they may cease to exist before any new order. They may suddenly get a shed load of cruise missiles fired at them simultaneously at all their military targets and put out of their misery.

How to do this while ensuring South Korea doesn't get a retaliatory strike is anyone's guess. Maybe just targeting the missiles and declaring this was the USA defending itself against North Korea and taking out a declared threat, then the North would have no justification to attack the South.

But if the North started shelling Seoul anyway, that would mean the end of the Northern regime. Maybe not the country, but the leaders for sure. Perhaps the North could remain as a stand alone country, to appease China, but with different leadership. Almost anything would be better. Even Fidel or Raul Castro. At least they're not dying of hunger in Cuba.

Wonder how many of North Korea's 600 planes are functional or if they even have fuel for them.

In light of the J-20, the F-15SE would be better in the high and fast arena, where the J-20 will be operating at. Wonder if the F-15SE can super cruise or not.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10004 times:

Well it appears the F-15SE probably can't super cruise. So not any better than the F-35 against planes like the J-20 or T-50, imho. Or even worse. But the F-15SE would work great as an attack plane.

Only the Rafale and the Typhoon can super cruise. How much that might help I don't know. In any case, I doubt Korea would go for anything European for political reasons and because Korea has a bunch of US missiles, bombs, pods, etc..that may not work on them.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9989 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 13):
clear logic has no place in military procurement especially when threatened.

You mean spend double the $$ by first acquiring the F-16 then the F-35? No wonder the US is in such a horrid financial state.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9983 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 15):

Only the Rafale and the Typhoon can super cruise.

A bit of nitpicking; there are multiple definitions of super cruise. The one that is accepted by Lockheed Martin (and by extension, the US military) is traveling in excess of Mach 1.5 without afterburner. Only one aircraft meets that definition: F-22. The reason being is because they only consider what the F-22 is capable of as "true" super cruise, because THAT is what the term was coined for.

If we accept the generally accepted definition (which is the one you are thinking of) of just in excess of the speed of sound, more aircraft are deemed super cruise capable. The Typhoon has demonstrated this level of performance, the Rafale, not so. F-35 also has this definition of super cruise as well (it has demonstrated the capability of cruising at Mach 1.2 for a distance of 150 miles).

When Lockheed Martin say the F-35 isn't a supercruiser, they mean that it won't do M1.5+ on dry thrust. Not that it cannot exceed M1.0 on dry thrust.

So on the basis of Lockheed Martin's definition, F-35 and the Typhoon isn't a supercruising aircraft. But on the definition that we all use, then it is a supercruising aircraft.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9968 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
-35 also has this definition of super cruise as well (it has demonstrated the capability of cruising at Mach 1.2 for a distance of 150 miles).

I don't think the F-35 can accelerate past the transonic zone without afterburner. And for those who think power is the determining factor - it isn't. Otherwise the Concorde would not have been able to super cruise at Mach 2.2 with it's low power to weight ratio. At those speeds, it's mostly about aero.

The American birds, except the F-22, are all showing their ages. They are all basically subsonic fighters, that includes the F-35. This is outdated. Why does it take so long to learn the lessons of the SR-71 and F-22? The Russians and Chinese have caught on.

I think the Chinese have torn a page out of the Euro fighters, which are much faster than even the F-15, because of their Delta/canard configuration. The F-15 is a great hauler for attack, but I think it's fighting days are over. But that's all Korea needs - an attack threat. The F-15 has that like nobody else.

The main wing of the J-20 looks a bit like the TU-144/Concorde to me. IMHO, that makes clear, the J-20 will run high and very fast, even with sub par engines. To compare, nobody would say that the Concorde or TU-144 had modern or powerful engines by today's standards, but they super cruised beyond Mach 2 for hours.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9962 times:

When was the last time a modern fighter needed to go past Mach1 in a battle situation? Yeah...exactly. Future aerial engagements will be won because of your avionics, not your speed. When the F35 enters service it will be the most advanced fighter in existence. The Chinese and Russians know they can't match the F35's level so they have to resort to speed - they'll need it to run away.

User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9936 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):

I don't think the F-35 can accelerate past the transonic zone without afterburner.

Not saying that it doesn't need afterburner to supersonic, but once supersonic, it can sustain it on dry thrust.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
At those speeds, it's mostly about aero.

And a nice, clean F-35 from the frontal aspect even when combat loaded compared to a similarly equipped F-16 or F/A-18 does the trick just fine.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
They are all basically subsonic fighters, that includes the F-35.

Every fighter is primarily a subsonic fighter. That's where the bulk of the actual combat takes place.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
This is outdated.

Not exactly; at higher speeds, it is more difficult to maneuver; you will either bleed more energy or you will have a very large turning radius.

If you look at every fight between fighters, in the hundreds of fights, only a handful ever exceeded the speed of sound. We've had fighters capable of going supersonic for half a century now.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
But that's all Korea needs - an attack threat.

Not exactly. They need to look to the future; who's the other major hegemon in the region. The Chinese will be a major concern to South Korea; there are a number of simmering territorial disputes with China over various islands, and there are some historical grievances between the two sides.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9846 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
ThePointblank

In the Fighter world, the saying is "speed is life". While most close in fights are done below Mach 1, you need to exceed Mach 1 to get to the fight, or leave it. Today's modern fighter aircraft are still optimized for BVR fighting, which is missiles. Yes, they also have a gun for close in dog fighting, but that is not what they were optimized for, except for the highly maneuverable F-16, Rafael, and Typhoon.

The whole purpose of stealth is optimized to prevent long range detection, and BVR. Once inside visual range, stealth is useless. Don't forget, around 2006 the F-35 had its stealth qualities reclassified from "very low observable" (as the F-117, B-2, and F-22 were), to "low observable", which is in reality a downgrade.

Stealth is also not needed once air supremacy is achieved, which is about a few days into the conflict..

The F-35 is a (sustained) 4.6G airplane (9G instantaneous, or maximum), the F-16 is a 9G airplane (not including the F-16E/F, which are 7.5G).

The F-35A has a combat range of less than 600nm, compared to more than 800nm for the F-15SE. The F-15SE also carries more than twice the bomb load the F-35A does. The F-35des have a 'bigger gun', a 25mm, but with only 180 rounds of ammo, the F-15SE has the standard F-15 20mm gun, but with 510 rounds of ammo, the same as the F-16. Going into combat, I would rather have more rounds of a smaller caliber, than a bigger caliber with fewer rounds (in this case less than half the number carried by other US built aircraft.

So, do you buy more capability in a fighter/bomber aircraft, at 85% of the costs of a less capable fighter/bomber aircraft? if you are buying the same number of aircraft, in this case 60?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9793 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
And a nice, clean F-35 from the frontal aspect even when combat loaded compared to a similarly equipped F-16 or F/A-18 does the trick just fine

Comparing the F-35 to the F-16 and F-18 is irrelevant. Those planes will never be a threat to F-35 operators. You need to compare the F-35 against aircraft that may actually be a threat, like the J-10B, J-20, Flankers and T-50. All are very fast aircraft. The Flankers are probably the slowest of the bunch. The J-20 probably the fastest. The Chinese seemingly to me, learned from the J-10B, which is reportedly a very fast aircraft, capable of super cruise - with one engine. The inlets are similar for instance, as is the canard/delta configuration. With the J-20 having even more sweep, a la Concorde/TU-144.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
Not exactly; at higher speeds, it is more difficult to maneuver; you will either bleed more energy or you will have a very large turning radius.

If you look at every fight between fighters, in the hundreds of fights, only a handful ever exceeded the speed of sound. We've had fighters capable of going supersonic for half a century now.

I am sure there were people in WWI and WWII that had a similar opinion about the needs for more speed.

With this attitude, you are looking into the rear view mirror and ignoring that progress and change is occurring. It's also ignoring the success of the F-22 and SR-71. They operate(d), at supersonic speeds at high altitude. Both are (were), untouchable by many missiles, due to their speed and altitude. By the time they're in your firing range, they're already out of it and even if you do get one off, like has often happened against the SR-71, and an evasive turn or evasive course has proven very effective in defeating inbound missiles using the high kinetc energy and maneuverability compared to a missile. The SR-71 wasn't exactly maneuverable or stealthy but was still able to pull this off all the time. The T-50 and J-20 will be much better since they will me more maneuverable and stealthier than the SR-71.

I bet the SR-71 has had more live SAM missiles and live A2A missiles fired at it over enemy territory than just about any other plane and never even got a scratch.

The F-35 is a subsonic airframe optimized for 25,000 feet with an operating regime, in all aspects, much more restricted than the current fighters. To date, the highest altitude it's reached is 43,000 feet. The world glider altitude record stands at 50, 699 feet.

This low energy regime dictates that the best tactic when encountering others newer jets, is to try to remain undetected and rely on low observability. Because being slower and lower, the F-35 can't force themselves into a favorable position. They'll need to rely on opportunity or a mistake.

However, Typhoon operators have already developed the wall formation - something anyone can replicate. Since the F-35 is not stealthy from all angles, with the wall formation, at least 1 Typhoon will have a radar look at the F-35 from an unfavorable angle to the F-35s. With datalink, all Typhoons will then see them.

This assumes the F-35s haven't been detected via IRST already and not radar.

In any case, for Korea, the attack role is probably much more important. For that, the F-15SE is hands down more effective. It carries so much, it's ridiculous. If Korea really needs stealth fighters, it'll have them in the form of US F-22s, which are in Korea right now.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9776 times:

The F-35 order is for the -B model, apparently for the ROKN. Looks like they may be joining the carrier club like the Italians.


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9763 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
While most close in fights are done below Mach 1, you need to exceed Mach 1 to get to the fight, or leave it.

Which the F-35 can cruise at a comfortable Mach 1.2 for 150nm in a combat configuration...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The whole purpose of stealth is optimized to prevent long range detection, and BVR. Once inside visual range, stealth is useless.

True, but stealth grants you the all critical first look, first shot advantage against a non-stealthy opponent. In combat the ability to place ordnance on the enemy and get the plane home are important. Dogfights are WWI tactics and this already rarely occured in WWII. Instead high spead passes on the enemy and team tactics dominated. So this incredible focus on very high levels of maneuverability is completely out of place. The integration of sensors and advanced weapon systems, plus the amount of beating a plane can take are much more important.

Look at the combat records of some of the most successful aces in the world; if you examined their fighting styles, it becomes very clear there are two distinct types of fighter pilots; one that predominantly uses team tactics to overwhelm the enemy, the second type is the stalk and ambush ace. Erich Hartmann is a great example of a pilot that was predominantly a stalk and ambush pilot. By his own account, he was convinced that 80% of the pilots he downed did not even realize what hit them. And he was never shot down, and more importantly, he never lost a wingman.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
Don't forget, around 2006 the F-35 had its stealth qualities reclassified from "very low observable" (as the F-117, B-2, and F-22 were), to "low observable", which is in reality a downgrade.

Oh please.

The problem was not with the plane, it was that they raised the bar for the VLO description, so the F-35 could not make the new mark, not that the plane suddenly became larger on radar. The radar signature stayed the same (the F-35 is from many sources, meeting targets on radar observability), it's just the pass mark that got higher. Paper qualification problem, not airframe problem.

To be very blunt and quick: the terms VLO and LO were redefined by the US DoD. NOTHING changed about the spec or the capability of the F-35 with regards to it's low observable performance.

The confusion may have come from perceptions of Low observables varying by degree of familiarity AND the desire to avoid classified discussion (we are borderline branching into things that are considered OPSEC). All VLO aircraft are by definition LO, and for general conversation in the public, ‘LO’ is a good enough characterization – just as the very deep ocean is often described as just ‘deep’ unless you’re an oceanographer talking to another oceanographer.

A word of caution regarding using terms like LO/VLO:

1. They are generally considered marketing terms.
2. They are sometimes used interchangeably on the F-35.
3. Lockheed refers to the F-35 as “VLO” at both of their sites (Lockheed.com and F35.com) yet refers to the F-22 as “LO” on www.f22-raptor.com and “VLO” on Lockheed.com.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The F-35 is a (sustained) 4.6G airplane (9G instantaneous, or maximum), the F-16 is a 9G airplane (not including the F-16E/F, which are 7.5G).

A F-16 isn't a 9G airframe when combat loaded; many stores have G limits well below that number. Such stores include the current drop tanks, and JDAM's.

And the sustained G limit is a temporary restriction; there is an issue discovered during testing of unusually high temperatures on the rear tail. Until they can place sensors on the area to better observe the situation and conduct more flight testing to monitor the situation, they've placed a limit.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The F-15SE also carries more than twice the bomb load the F-35A does.

Nope. Equivalent. F-15SE needs external fuel tanks and the conformal tanks to achieve its range. Plus, you need a jammer, and targeting pod for the F-15SE. A F-35 can carry 15,000lbs of stores, primarily weapons, not fuel loaded wall to wall.

And the F-15E has never been loaded with 23,000lbs of ordinance; for one thing, if you did, you wouldn't have a whole lot of fuel. Most notional combat configurations of the F-15E only weigh in at around 71-76,000 lbs all in, of which only around 6-8,000lbs is actual weapons, as demonstrated by the combat load outs in OIF, OEF, OAF, and ODS. The rest is all empty weight and fuel, plus other stuff (like targeting and navigation pods). Once you look at an actual combat configured F-15E and compare it a combat configured F-35 loaded wall to wall with weapons, the differences disappear.

There's a website that lists some of the combat configurations of the F-15E in past conflicts that is a useful guide on past configurations: www.f-15e.info

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
Stealth is also not needed once air supremacy is achieved, which is about a few days into the conflict.

I would not bet on that... against the most recent enemies we've been fighting (Iraq in OIF, Libya and Afghanistan), they had no real air defences to speak of. Against more prepared enemy, such as Serbia during OAF, or Iraq during ODS, SAM's were still a major worry even days into the air campaign. The losses suffered by the Package Q strike during ODS is a clear reminder that despite us achieving air superiority over an opponent, a more prepared and equipped opponent will still inflict serious harm if we don't respect the enemy and acknowledge that the enemy, although beaten, can still hurt us.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The F-35des have a 'bigger gun', a 25mm, but with only 180 rounds of ammo, the F-15SE has the standard F-15 20mm gun, but with 510 rounds of ammo, the same as the F-16. Going into combat, I would rather have more rounds of a smaller caliber, than a bigger caliber with fewer rounds (in this case less than half the number carried by other US built aircraft.

If you want, we could always go back to the Browning M2/M3 machine gun... or even a .30 machine gun. We will have lots of rounds for those guns in an aircraft, but I doubt we will do much in the way of damage.

The GAU-22/A Equalizer's 25mm round hits much harder and with more force than the 20mm round in the M61 Vulcan. The Equalizer has a slower rate of fire, but I will note that the muzzle velocity of the GAU-22/A is higher than the M61, and fires a heavier round that has anti-armour applications, making more useful in an air-to-ground role. The 25x137 mm cartridge pushes a 492g projectile at 3,630 fps compared to the 20x102mm cartridge which runs a 263g projectile at 3,380 fps. In terms of kinetic energy, the 25mm round packs 297.7 kJ compared to the 20mm round's 138.2 kJ. So it is essentially twice as powerful a round - flatter shooting, better penetration, heavier explosive fill. One hit is pretty much equivalent to two 20mm hits on soft targets and worth even more on armoured targets which requires the round to punch through a few centimeters of steel.

To give you a clear idea of the bigger punch the 25mm round has, see below for a comparison image between the various rounds of ammunition:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ModernAC.jpg

The M61 Vulcan 20mm round is 3rd from the left and the GAU-22/A 25mm is fifth from left. You can see how much bigger the 25mm round is compared to the 20mm round, both in terms of actual size and the actual cartridge size.

We are getting into the age old debate between two different ideas of aircraft cannon weaponry (the older US practice of lighter rounds fired more rapidly versus the European practice of heavier rounds at a lower rate of fire). However, the trend is leaning towards heavier rounds at a lower rate of fire, following the European practice. The AV-8B Harrier, I will note, uses the GAU-12 Equalizer which has 300 rounds of 25mm ammo in two external pods. The US is slowly starting to standardize on the 25mm round over the 20mm round as its standard aircraft cannon ammunition.


25 Powerslide : This is turning into one of those threads again.......
26 tommytoyz : The Koreans are only considering the F-35A as far as I know. I tip my hat towards the F-15SE winning for so many reasons. If they were considering th
27 ThePointblank : Yes it is because those two are the aircraft F-35 is replacing! No J-10B never claimed to have supercruising capabilities. I don't know where the hec
28 tommytoyz : You are pulling this out from nowhere as you have no way of knowing this. This is the most classified part of the F-35 program and the GAO reports ne
29 tommytoyz : You don't quite understand the wall formation. The planes would be spread out, searching for a stealth plane from various angles simultaneously and i
30 Post contains links and images ThePointblank : So you are talking about a bunch of Typhoons against one F-35, right? I'm tell you that this will never happen in an actual combat situation. Fighter
31 tommytoyz : No, the more F-35's the better. Shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind. With the F-35 carrying only 2 A2A missiles, it's not even a fair fight again
32 SCAT15F : If the F-15SE used F-110-132 engines, it could probably supercruise at mach 1.2 like the F-35. For some reason the US always goes for the lowest commo
33 Powerslide : Irony at its finest.
34 ThePointblank : I'm not going to even bother try to correct such fallacy considering I just posted a diagram displaying F-35's pylons and the weight capabilities of
35 KC135TopBoom : Yeap, 10.4 minutes of flying time to cover that distance. Okay, that gets you to the fight, now fuel is a problem, you don't have enough to fight for
36 Post contains links and images ThePointblank : 150 miles at Mach 1.2 is very good, considering that the F-22 is supposed to do Mach 1.5 for 115 miles. The combat range of the F-35 is 672 miles, so
37 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Apparently, that news concerns Singapore...and is going through some minor...errr...'fact checking'..... http://media.defenceindustrydaily.co...es/AI
38 tommytoyz : That's below marginal. One turn or slight climb and the F-35 falls below Mach 1.2 needing to light afterburner to maintain supersonic flight or fall
39 ThePointblank : Gee, you know so much about how a fighter should fly, why, don't you present your credentials and your theories to the USAF, the DoD, the Pentagon, t
40 KC135TopBoom : The USAF has no "second line squadrons", they are all fully combat ready and fully "front line squadrons". It is fractions of a second. Sounds snippy
41 bilgerat : Can you source that please? The plan is to retire the early Tranche 1 Typhoons beginning 2015. The UK hasn't actually committed to procuring the F-35
42 kanban : from the other thread in response to : 'and you can of course authenticate this without using LM's propaganda." Thepointblankresponse: "This is the i
43 Ozair : That is fantastic news. I follow the F-35 program pretty closely, especially the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft and gather all the info I ca
44 Post contains links tommytoyz : Effects of shockwaves become apparent well in advance of the aircraft reaching Mach 1 when parts of the airflow around the aircraft become supersonic.
45 Ozair : Great, we all know this. This does not address the F-35 specific ability to remain at M1.2 supercruising. How do you know this? Do you have access to
46 tommytoyz : Every aircraft loses speed if it turns or climbs, unless you add power as well. There is no plane that doesn't. I do not need data on the F-35 to kno
47 Powerslide : Maybe in airshow configuration. Full weapons load with pylons, EFT's and pods? I don't think so.
48 Post contains links Ozair : Still no source so I will help you. The basis for your M1.2 claim is a quote from Air Force Magazine, http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineA...2/Novemb
49 Post contains links ThePointblank : True, what I meant was that units that will continue to operate the F-15 will probably not see intensive combat and be tasked duties and areas that a
50 kanban : The point is (no pun intended) if you make a statement and we challenge it, or ask for source information so we can become as smart, you should provi
51 Post contains links tommytoyz : I can't remember ever asking you to authenticate anything. I am making claims of what the F-35 is not capable of. It is not capable of maneuvering in
52 ThePointblank : Prove it. Provide sources that verify your statement. Billie Flynn in his past, worked as a test pilot for the Eurofighter. This is his profile at Th
53 Ozair : And there is little credibility of your statement given you refuse to provide any evidence to support your claim. LoL, and Typhoon can't land on a ca
54 bikerthai : Dang . . . came in too late to comment on this portion of the debate. The biggest difference between the 20mm round and a 25mm round is not necessari
55 bilgerat : The UK hasn't committed to purchasing any F-35's beyond the development airframes. Original intentions were to purchase 150 but it is now widely beli
56 Post contains links tommytoyz : The F-35 can't supercruise like the F-22 Raptor, but the test pilots have found that once they break the sound barrier, supersonic speeds are easy to
57 SCAT15F : It certainly will if it is equipped with the 20,000 lb dry/32,500 lb AB F110-132, which so far no F-15's have been. Frankly I fail to understand why
58 Ozair : And the quote from Lockheed Martin Vice President Stephen O'Bryan talking to Air Force Magazine is 18 months later than yours. In a development progr
59 tommytoyz : Ozair, Let's make this simple. You provide a link or proof the F-35 can actually accelerate to supersonic speeds without afterburner and without desce
60 Ozair : First, I never said the F-35 could accelerate to supersonic not using afterburner. I actually said, It is common practise to use afterburner to cross
61 Post contains links tommytoyz : http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...35A-Testing-Moves-Into-High-Speeds If you do not want to believe this, I can't help you. Linking to more won't
62 Ozair : I don't know, I certainly didn't. For some reason you are trying to morph this to a question about using afterburner to get supersonic. You introduce
63 tommytoyz : It means the F-35 is a 100% subsonic aircraft without afterburner. It means the F-35 can only push supersonic and sustain MACH 1.2 dry a) only after
64 Ozair : Well kind of. If the aircraft can fly at M1.2 without using afterburner what does it matter how he got there? Do you think the Typhoon, Rafale, F-22,
65 bikerthai : Attaching a more powerful engine may be simple. However you must make sure the supporting structure can withstand the new thrust rating. Even if the
66 Post contains links tommytoyz : The SR-71 used this technique. Others do too. There is no reason why the F-35 couldn't also. But as a combat technique, I find it dubious. Even this
67 Post contains links Ozair : So...answer the question? Well EM theory is evolving with the use of new technology. In an era of high off boresight all aspect missiles sustained tu
68 ThePointblank : So attack the idea, not the person. Explain why he's wrong. Provide evidence that he's wrong. Billie Flynn is very well qualified to make such statem
69 tommytoyz : None of these capabilities are going to help the fighter if it is not in a position to fire, because it is lower and slower than the target. The high
70 Ozair : Well you can be lower and slower than the target and still fire. Can I be 100ft lower and 20 kts slower and still fire? Don't you think sensors play
71 tommytoyz : More like 40,000 feet lower and 400 knots slower. Just over the thumb, I would think the higher/faster jet's missiles would have at least twice the r
72 Powerslide : And the articles you linked are just pure bias garbage. Works both ways.
73 ThePointblank : A IRST or a FLIR system is not designed for volume search. You need a external cueing source to start the search. If you want to get an idea of the l
74 Post contains links Ozair : That makes no sense. Why do you get to be 40,000ft above and 400 knots faster? Because the scenario you have contrived means you get to. If I was pla
75 Post contains links tommytoyz : The F-35 can only do 50% of this at high speed. Besides, more than 9G sustained and the pilot blacks out. F-16 is similarly limited by the FBW. Secon
76 Powerslide : About damn time. Your 'insightfulness' in these threads lack proof to back up your opinion. Next time try to bring facts instead of using your bias h
77 thunderboltdrgn : The same goes for the rest of you as well.
78 ThePointblank : Can they operate with a meaningful load, that's the question. I just showed that a F/A-18 Super Hornet cannot operate with a meaningful load above 44
79 Ozair : Because you can't provide any. I won't bother going any further considering you continue to make clearly incorrect statements that are unsupportable.
80 sovietjet : I love it when people throw these numbers around as if they mean anything. 0.005m2 to 0.0001m2? From what angle? From the front? Side? Top? Rear? Usi
81 Post contains links Ozair : Agree, especially when you consider that the Global security page has three different values for the B-2, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/worl
82 ual777 : He shot down 6 mustangs in one sortie.... True airspeed only increases to a point with altitude, get high enough and your MMO starts to decrease, and
83 jetblueguy22 : This thread has gone completely off topic and will be archived to future posts. Any posts made after the lock will be removed for housekeeping purpose
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
B-52 Overflew South Korea March 08 2013 posted Mon Mar 18 2013 11:08:58 by tommytoyz
Any F-22's In South Korea...? posted Tue Nov 23 2010 17:29:06 by lucky777
Looking For South Korean P-3 Orion Pics posted Wed Feb 18 2009 12:44:38 by JakeOrion
South Korea Selects B737 AEW&C posted Fri Aug 4 2006 06:13:26 by DEVILFISH
U-2 Crash In South Korea posted Sun Jan 26 2003 08:51:31 by Flyf15
Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada? posted Fri May 29 2009 01:34:22 by JoeCanuck
S Korea 4-4E Replacement: F-15 Or F-35? posted Fri Oct 14 2011 07:10:05 by art
More Grief For The F-35... posted Thu Sep 1 2011 05:01:23 by JoeCanuck
Norway Buy's 4 F-35 For Training posted Thu Apr 7 2011 12:53:11 by OyKIE
How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...? posted Wed Nov 17 2010 15:56:14 by JoeCanuck