Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
South Korean F-X Fighter Bidding Extended  
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8082 times:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_07_01_2013_p0-592805.xml

The bidding ended, and an additional bidding will resume on July 2,” said Baek Yoon-hyeong, spokesman for the defense acquisition agency, according to Yonhap.

I think I read somewhere the reason is because the costs for all entrants was over the $7.3 Billion budget. If it comes down to costs, who has the better cards, the F-15SE or the Typhoon?

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8078 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Thread starter):
I think I read somewhere the reason is because the costs for all entrants was over the $7.3 Billion budget. If it comes down to costs, who has the better cards, the F-15SE or the Typhoon?

IIRC, Eurofighter offered local production for Typhoon. If the cost envelope can be close to $7,3B, that might tip the decision. I can't se Boeing going for local SE production. They have enough labour problems as it is.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8031 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 1):
IIRC, Eurofighter offered local production for Typhoon. If the cost envelope can be close to $7,3B, that might tip the decision. I can't se Boeing going for local SE production. They have enough labour problems as it is.

South Korea is more after a strike aircraft, and with Eurofighter's air to ground capabilities not as well developed as the F-15E or even the F-35 will be, and with no road map to develop Eurofighter's capabilities, I don't believe it is in real contention. This will be a toss up between F-15SE and F-35.

South Korea published a new defence strategy emphasizing pre-emptive strikes against North Korea's missile and nuclear programs in the event of a conflict. They are planning to create a "kill chain" system that is designed to detect signs of impending missile or nuclear attacks and launch pre-emptive strikes that eliminate the threat.

This would change the decision process, from 'we need a bomb truck to kill North Korean artillery and missile batteries' to infiltrating North Korean air space and destroying systems as they begin to assemble. A simple bomb truck option are readily available on the market, with plenty of options out there, but if they want to pursue deep, surgical strikes against North Korea's missile and nuclear programs in the event of a war, their options becomes much more limited.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8001 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Thread starter):
I think I read somewhere the reason is because the costs for all entrants was over the $7.3 Billion budget.

It's in the article you quoted.
yet the offers were over the budget, South Korea%u2019s Yonhap News Agency said citing the state%u2019s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) officials

Quoting tommytoyz (Thread starter):
If it comes down to costs, who has the better cards, the F-15SE or the Typhoon?

Much of the cost for these airframes comes down to production. If we look at each of the airframes in contention,

F-15SE - Saudi production of F-15SA will probably be occurring from approx 2015-19. Given South Korea plans for delivery from 2017-21 there should be some overlap and allow for a reduction in cost. Even with the overlap, there is probably only going to be a production rate of maybe 24-30 frames a year. Projected cost in 2009 dollars was US$100 mill each according to a Boeing release in 2009. Would have to be the last customer of the F-15 if ordered.

Typhoon - Currently being built at 24 a year and will end production in 2018. BAE are waiting on the South Korea and Malaysia deals as these are probably the only way to continue production. I can't see production increasing more than 10-15 a year to accommodate additional orders so again production cost savings are low. If South Korea does get local assembly there may be some wiggle room. German sources put the 2009 price of a Tranche 3A at over 90 mill Euro so closer to US$110 mill each but with the line closing surely there is some room there?

F-35A - The only jet not in full rate production but will be by 2017 when South Korea wants their initial deliveries. Projected costs in 2009 dollars for full-rate production jets remains lower than the above two but the big issue is risk with delivery. Will jets to an acceptable standard, probably software version 3F, be available when South Korea need them, especially as everyone else will be clamoring to get full rate production jets over LRIP. Few doubt that South Korea will end up operating the F-35 in the future but this might be a little too early for the capability they require.

Pretty clear through the Koreans are pushing for a bargain, especially if all three are above the price ceiling. All three have something to gain from the sale so will be interesting to see which the South Koreans choose.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7949 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):

F-35A - ............ Projected costs in 2009 dollars for full-rate production jets remains lower than the above two but the big issue is risk with delivery.

If you include the engine costs, the equation changes. Only the F-35 program quotes the costs separate.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7926 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 4):
If you include the engine costs, the equation changes. Only the F-35 program quotes the costs separate.

The US DSCA says $10.8 billion for 60 F-35A's with engines, including spare engines, and support. It is unknown what others have bidded as their price, but I would imagine that the Eurofighter and F-15SE bid's are similar in price due to the list prices of those aircraft.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7884 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 2):
and with Eurofighter's air to ground capabilities not as well developed as the F-15E or even the F-35 will be, and with no road map to develop Eurofighter's capabilities

What world do you live in? There's a very well defined road map to integrate more ground attack weapons and develop existing capabilities through Tranche 2 point updates and further enhancements in the Tranche 3 definition.

But then again, the Eurofighter proved to be capable during the Libyan campaign for the RAF with the capability defined in Tranche 1 ACU and Tranche 2 standard ground attack abilities.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7869 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 6):
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 2):
and with Eurofighter's air to ground capabilities not as well developed as the F-15E or even the F-35 will be, and with no road map to develop Eurofighter's capabilities

What world do you live in? There's a very well defined road map to integrate more ground attack weapons and develop existing capabilities through Tranche 2 point updates and further enhancements in the Tranche 3 definition.

I agree. There's a long-standing mindset that, if your own product can't do the job, denigrate the other guy.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7794 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 2):
with Eurofighter's air to ground capabilities not as well developed as the F-15E or even the F-35 will be,

The F-35's capabilities will be at an unknown state in 2017-2019, but for sure very limited, as the software is not even scheduled to be completed by then and even more possible delays have been mentioned. For capability reasons alone, it's a toss up between F-15Se and Typhoon, IMHO.

The F-35 is also surely the most expensive of the bunch. The future price is just a promise and we know how many of those the F-35 program has kept. I don't care what the value is that the DoD mentions as export price to Congress, it's merely a future unknown data point subject to change. I don't trust the F-35 program people and their promises as far as I can throw them, due to their actual track record and past patterns of lies to the public and to Congress over the years.

This is a toss up between F-15Se and Typhoon, IMHO. Both are acceptable in performance. Since Korea wants technology transfer and a good price, how do those two stack up in those areas? I am not sure those two manufacturers are willing to let Korea manufacture them in Korea, which is maybe something they're holding off for.

For quick and stealthy deep strikes, there is nothing better than modern cruise missiles. The next generation of cruise missiles will be even better. Korea has now purchased the Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile for the F-15Ks in inventory.

The Taurus has a 1,060-pound warhead capable of penetrating more than 18 feet of reinforced concrete with a range of 300 miles.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Sec.../UPI-56791371730860/#ixzz2YOJVt5HM


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7720 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 6):
What world do you live in? There's a very well defined road map to integrate more ground attack weapons and develop existing capabilities through Tranche 2 point updates and further enhancements in the Tranche 3 definition.

With a very limited set of weapons (primarily, the Paveway series LGB are cleared and a couple of air to ground missiles) are defined. The F-15E's list of cleared weapons is very long, which includes everything from LGB's, JDAM's, cluster munitions, AGM's, SDB's, etc. The F-35 has a equally long list of weapons it will be cleared for. Add on that the F-35 and F-15E will support the Universal Armaments Interface (UAI) out of the box, which allows for quick and easy clearance and integration of new weapons in the future.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7709 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
The F-35 is also surely the most expensive of the bunch. The future price is just a promise and we know how many of those the F-35 program has kept. I don't care what the value is that the DoD mentions as export price to Congress, it's merely a future unknown data point subject to change. I don't trust the F-35 program people and their promises as far as I can throw them, due to their actual track record and past patterns of lies to the public and to Congress over the years.

F-35 will be entering full-rate production by 2017. There are tremendous cost savings when a production programme is running at full rate production, which will drive down costs, no matter what.

Considering that a F-15K was over $100 million per copy in FY2006 dollars, I highly doubt that a F-15SE, with more features and development required is going to be even cheaper. In fact, it would be a very reasonable expectation that a F-15SE would be even more expensive (not factoring in inflation), and possibly be the most expensive offer out of the three.

Additionally, South Korea's F-15K fleet is incredibly expensive to maintain; there is a news report that between 2008 and 2012, the costs jumped from 9.7 billion won to maintain an operational rate of 82 percent for the 40 F-15Ks in 2008, to 95.82 billion won in 2011, with only a 2% improve in availability rates:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/02/113_104752.html

That is a 10-fold increase in maintenance costs, FYI, and that will weigh heavily in South Korean officials minds.

The Eurofighter is also not exactly cheap; a recent report indicates that for the Germans, there has been a price escalation for their fleet of Eurofighters, and Germany now expects to pay 16.8 billion euros for 143 Eurofighters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...hter-germany-idUSL6N0FD0K420130707


Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
This is a toss up between F-15Se and Typhoon, IMHO. Both are acceptable in performance.

F-35 is a major contender here, and I would not be too surprised if South Korea chooses F-35.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
Since Korea wants technology transfer and a good price, how do those two stack up in those areas? I am not sure those two manufacturers are willing to let Korea manufacture them in Korea, which is maybe something they're holding off for.

South Korea also wants industrial benefits, and Lockheed Martin's agreement with KAI to cross market the T-50 to the US jet trainer contest if they choose F-35 is a big one (we are talking about a potential for South Korea to export 300-1000 T-50's to the US if both bids are successful).

Not to mention the offer of a FACO facility to assemble and maintain a possible South Korean F-35 fleet in Korea, alongside US F-35's (American F-16's stationed in Korea are overhauled by Korea Aerospace Industries). In addition, LM promised that if F-35 is selected, they would also help develop and launch South Korea military satellites. Also, the prospect of being a long term supplier of advanced manufacturing work on a project with a long prospective production life is also extremely attractive from a IRB standpoint.

Technology transfer is highly dependent on South Korea developing their own jet fighter, but the problem is that F-X and a domestic fighter programme are not interconnected. What if a supplier wins F-X with a generous technology transfer package, and then never has to transfer the technology because South Korea elects not to design their jet fighter? For South Korean officials, it would be a apparent contradiction if if say, EADS won with their offer of a $2 billion dollar investment in a domestic fighter jet programme and full technology transfer to South Korea, and South Korea in the end elects not to design and build a jet fighter, meaning EADS never has to invest $2 billion dollars and transfer technology. There is already strong domestic opposition to a South Korean fighter jet development project.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
For quick and stealthy deep strikes, there is nothing better than modern cruise missiles. The next generation of cruise missiles will be even better. Korea has now purchased the Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile for the F-15Ks in inventory.

They are part of a force mix, however other targets/scenarios may call for more precision, bunker busting effects, etc. best achieved via aircraft. That will require some sort of a LO strike aircraft, and both the F-15SE and F-35 fit that bill to varying degrees.

In addition, South Korea will have to think about exactly what strike missions South Korea has in mind. A F-15SE will work best if South Korea intends for the winner to be dropping bombs on attacking North Korean forces close to the front by racing up to the DMZ, toss guided bombs onto targets, and head back to re-arm. If South Korea intends to strike deep into enemy assembly areas or target nuclear and long range missile emplacements as they pop up, or have the fighter loiter over the war zone dropping bombs as targets pop up, especially against moving targets, then something with better lower observability is required, and that solution would lean towards F-35.

Also, in the future, South Korea has to contend with Japan. It would be intolerable to South Koreans to hear that their F-15SEs or Typhoons while patrolling near the Liancourt Rocks had been bounced by Japanese F-35As that they had failed to detect.

In all, a lot of things for South Korea to consider here, and this will be a truly interesting competition to watch.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7693 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 4):
If you include the engine costs, the equation changes. Only the F-35 program quotes the costs separate.

From http://ainonline.com/aviation-news/a...ersion-reports-training-duty-eglin

Affordability is a key issue for the F-35 program. “We’re on path to achieve an $85 million unit recurring flyaway cost (URFC) for the F-35A by 2020,” O’Bryan declared. That figure is in then-year dollars–the current-year equivalent would be $75 million. However, the F-35As being procured in Fiscal Year 2013 are actually costing $140 million each; there will be a steep decrease in the URFC over the next few years. The URFC includes the aircraft, engine, mission systems and an allowance for concurrency costs.
Even if they miss that by 25% and you add the FMS fees it should still be cheaper than the other two contenders. It is a 2020 price though and therefore probably 15-25% cheaper than 2017-18 pricing. I am sure the F-15 and Typhoon could get down to such a low price as well if they were manufacturing 140+ jets a year!

Again, the big issue is software. Will the South Koreans accept a software release that does not provide full capability and a full release that may be a year or two late? If not then the F-15 and the Typhoon are the sure bet.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2130 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7578 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 1):
I can't se Boeing going for local SE production. They have enough labour problems as it is.

No issue with labor when dealing with military contract. Both the AH-64 an Wedgetail had local final production/mod.

But it's the local production that drives up the cost . . .

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7512 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 11):
“We’re on path to achieve an $85 million unit recurring flyaway cost (URFC) for the F-35A by 2020,” O’Bryan declared.

1. That's a promise that's 7 long years away. Their track record on keeping them is not good
2. The Koreans want their planes delivered before 2020.
3. F-35s can't carry the Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile Korea just bought while F-15 and Typhoon can
4. The Taurus has a 1,060-pound warhead capable of penetrating more than 18 feet of reinforced concrete with a range of 300 miles and flies at MACH 0.95
5. F-35s built in 2017-2018 will be more expensive and have an unknown capability status, Who wants to buy ????
6. Tranche 3 of Typhoon will be pretty capable as is the F-15. No ????? on the capabilities of those two planes.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7468 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 13):

1. That's a promise that's 7 long years away. Their track record on keeping them is not good

The savings are based on well known metric related to production efficiencies. The same efficiencies that enabled the F-16 to be such a cheap aircraft.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 13):
2. The Koreans want their planes delivered before 2020.

Which I have mentioned in the thread twice already and fortunately operational quality airframes are coming off the production line right now.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 13):
3. F-35s can't carry the Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile Korea just bought while F-15 and Typhoon can

Why not?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 13):
4. The Taurus has a 1,060-pound warhead capable of penetrating more than 18 feet of reinforced concrete with a range of 300 miles and flies at MACH 0.95

?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 13):
5. F-35s built in 2017-2018 will be more expensive and have an unknown capability status, Who wants to buy ????

Which I already mentioned in my above post you quoted and was the point of the entire post.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 13):
6. Tranche 3 of Typhoon will be pretty capable as is the F-15. No ????? on the capabilities of those two planes.

Agree, hence why as I have already stated it will come down to what level of risk the Koreans are willing to accept and what price they are willing to pay. Clearly all three are overpriced, so the first guy to blink and drop his price will probably win the contract.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3548 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7457 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ozair (Reply 14):
Clearly all three are overpriced, so the first guy to blink and drop his price will probably win the contract.

Aaah, truth in the thread at last.. plus one can bet that capabilities being touted in the sales propaganda are partially fictional ( or not currently deliverable) as well...


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7457 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 12):
But it's the local production that drives up the cost . . .

Are you talking about South Korean specific programs or in general? I know Australia would have higher costs doing local conversion of airframes but wouldn't South Korea have a lower manpower cost base?


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2130 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7451 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 16):

The manpower cost is probably not a major factor for either Australia or Korea. When you get to the level of skills needed for Aircraft final assembly, the cost is probably comparable.

I'm thinking about the cost of coming down the learning curve and the initial support that will have to be provide by the home facility for factory support.

The more skilled the worker, the faster you come down that learning curve.

There's also the cost of setting up a local final assembly which may including sending over team(s) of technical support personnel etc . for the duration of the build.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7438 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 17):
I'm thinking about the cost of coming down the learning curve

For a cost conscious acquisition and a production run of approximately 15 aircraft a year this could be a significant factor. The commercial realist in me says maybe it is worth it to lose a few dollars on the sale and gain more in the support contract.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 17):
the initial support that will have to be provided by the home facility for factory support.

I know a number of Boeing workers that would love 18 months in Korea to bed down an assembly line.....

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 17):
There's also the cost of setting up a local final assembly which may including sending over team(s) of technical support personnel etc . for the duration of the build.

Would Boeing gain an edge given they have the F-15K and Peace Eye contracts already in place and probably a lot of infrastructure/industry relationships established, at least to lower these types of costs? LM probably has some existing relationships given South Korea's large F-16 fleet but BAE recently won the F-16 avionics upgrade contract.

So Boeing looks to have the edge on existing facilities and relationships with LM & BAE having similar smaller profiles.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7424 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 13):
3. F-35s can't carry the Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile Korea just bought while F-15 and Typhoon can

FYI, the South Koreans only decided to purchase the Taurus missile only after the US refused to sell JASSM to South Korea (basically, they refused to allow the weapon to be integrated on the F-15K fleet). And this plan is apparently under threat, with the South Korean National Assembly recommending that the purchase be reviewed.

With F-35 (and later on with F-15E), they will be equipped with the Universal Armaments Interface. This allows for quick and easy integration of new weapons onto the aircraft as long as the weapon was designed to communicate via this interface. Basically, it's the first attempt to make weapons integration a matter of 'plug and play'. It will be akin to plugging in a new printer onto your computer, with the only thing that needs to be done is installing a driver, and doing some tests to make sure it works.


Apparently, the evaluation criteria for the F-X competition is as follows:
Life cycle cost: 30 percent
Suitability for the role: 33.61 percent
Operational compatibility: 17.98 percent.
Offset factors: 18.41 percent.
http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/...s/article/Article.aspx?aid=2974263

Quoting Ozair (Reply 14):
Agree, hence why as I have already stated it will come down to what level of risk the Koreans are willing to accept and what price they are willing to pay. Clearly all three are overpriced, so the first guy to blink and drop his price will probably win the contract.

If South Korea was primarily concerned about price, they could have purchased more F-16's and be done with it. However, A lowest cost bidder wins rationale really only makes sense if all 3 options are equal which we know is not the case. The Eurofighter, F-15SE, and F-35 are all totally different aircraft from each other.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7417 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/...s/article/Article.aspx?aid=2974263

I had just found that link and was going to post it myself. An interesting read and an interesting way to compare the aircraft.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
A lowest cost bidder wins rationale really only makes sense if all 3 options are equal which we know is not the case. The Eurofighter, F-15SE, and F-35 are all totally different aircraft from each other.

South Korea probably has a number of scenarios to war-game the respective jets against. Whether these bring out the respective capabilities of each aircraft is unknown.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
If South Korea was primarily concerned about price, they could have purchased more F-16's and be done with it.

But they are concerned about price. They have a budget ceiling they wanted the contenders to meet. Given none of the contenders was able to meet that ceiling, the Koreans have the option of going back for more cash or keep pushing Boeing, LM and BAE/EADS for a better deal.

Pretty clear they are not interested in more F-16s either way.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7377 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 14):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 13):
3. F-35s can't carry the Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile Korea just bought while F-15 and Typhoon can

Why not?

No idea why, but it is a fact. I think the ability to carry munitions in inventory will also play into this.

Bottom line: Telling is that Korea has not ordered the F-35 and neither have Singapore, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Holland, Norway, and other nations that "should" have by now. Actions speak louder than words. International orders are but a handful and a large chunk (Israel) because they're free (defense subsidies).

For Korea, all the inducements that PB has mentioned - if true - has not been enough to win them over to the F-35. That speaks volumes. So no, the F-35 in my mind is not a contender.

I wonder how the F-15SE and Typhoon stack up on price? Anyone have an idea?


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7367 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
No idea why, but it is a fact.

Facts without evidence are the best kind.....

What you probably mean is that it is not integrated onto the F-35. This is true. There are not many reasons why it couldn't be though, all that has to happen is the South Koreans pay for the integration costs. If you are going to buy 60+ of a specific aircraft the costs to integrate one cruise missile is pretty insignificant.

If the Wiki page is anything to go by the missile has not been integrated on the F-15 either, so would require funding to make that happen. In addition, the Koreans have not actually purchased it yet and may be walking away from it, http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20130705000594

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
I wonder how the F-15SE and Typhoon stack up on price?

F-15SE

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
Projected cost in 2009 dollars was US$100 mill each according to a Boeing release in 2009

Typhoon

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
German sources put the 2009 price of a Tranche 3A at over 90 mill Euro so closer to US$110 mill each
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
For Korea, all the inducements that PB has mentioned - if true - has not been enough to win them over to the F-35. That speaks volumes. So no, the F-35 in my mind is not a contender.

Pull off the blinkers mate. The Koreans have rejected all three on the basis of price, nothing more and nothing less. They want a good deal and none of the three are willing to go that low on price. At this stage we have no idea who is preferred amongst the three.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7365 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
No idea why, but it is a fact. I think the ability to carry munitions in inventory will also play into this.

The Taurus missile isn't even in inventory in South Korea. The purchase is even recommended for review by the South Korean parliament as of last week, so we will see what will transpire out of this purchase.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
Telling is that Korea has not ordered the F-35

This is in progress, and they are evaluating. But South Korea will be a F-35 customer down the line, they will have to eventually replace their F-16's down the line.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
Singapore

They are deliberating. Decision is expected to be this summer.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
Australia

They have affirmed their decision to go with F-35, but they intend on placing their order closer to full rate production.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
Canada

Eventual F-35 customer. I know Saab is not going to bid here, and Dassault is also thinking the same.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
Denmark,

They have a $200 million dollar investment already riding in F-35, along with potential supplier contracts. I am betting that they will delay their purchase until their economy improves.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
Holland

Funny, because the Dutch have 2 LRIP F-35's already on the flight line. Exact numbers that they will purchase will be determined by the end of this year.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
Norway

They are about to place a order for 6 initial F-35's this year, to be delivered in 2017, on top of the 4 aircraft ordered last June.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/.../us-norway-f-idUSBRE93P13I20130426

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
International orders are but a handful and a large chunk (Israel) because they're free (defense subsidies).

You have Japan. They made the decision freely and of their own accord.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
For Korea, all the inducements that PB has mentioned - if true - has not been enough to win them over to the F-35. That speaks volumes. So no, the F-35 in my mind is not a contender.

Korea had a budget, and it appears that budget isn't realistic for the capabilities they desire. They will have to go back to the drawing board and either rethink their requirements to get the price down, or increase their budget. My bet is that they'll go back to their parliament and get more funds because clearly, with the capabilities they desire, nothing is within their planned budget. They had the option that if they wanted to stick within their budget, they could have gotten more F-16's, but clearly, they wanted more capabilities. Hence the down-selection of Eurofighter, F-15SE, and F-35.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2130 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7302 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 18):
Would Boeing gain an edge given they have the F-15K and Peace Eye contracts already in place and probably a lot of infrastructure/industry relationships established, at least to lower these types of costs?

Boeing will always have an edge in terms of relationships with the amount of commercial and military work they have in Korea.

I know that Wedgetail and Peace Eagle had in-country mod. Did the Peace Eye do the same? Even so, the Peace Eye contingent would not be the same to support any F-15SE build as those folks will probably come out of St. Louis.

And by the way, South Korea is already buying AH-64E. So, win or lose, Boeing will still have a big foot print on the Korean peninsula.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
25 Post contains links tommytoyz : Korea has no other viable option, since JASSM will not be sold to them by the USA. They wanted it, but won't get it. So it's either the Taurus or not
26 ThePointblank : Not likely, as the Gripen NG is riding on the Swiss deal. The Swiss are paying $100 million a copy, Sweden is paying more, but the problem is that Sw
27 tommytoyz : Even I know a large portion of these are not firm orders. Anyone else know how many actual firm F-35 international orders there are right now? This I
28 Post contains links Ozair : Ypur figures are wrong. The following press release indicates that Australia and the Netherlands (as well as an entire thread on A.net devoted to its
29 tommytoyz : The Taurus will be integrated onto the F-15K. Read the numerous statements from the Korean side regarding this. They will pay to integrate it onto the
30 Post contains links and images Ozair : Read the latest press release quoted by myself in reply 22. They may not be even buying the thing. If they buy it, then yes. Until that time, no. You
31 tommytoyz : OK, I stand corrected on the Australia order. So we add 2 international orders. Not much difference. And no, I will not ad the Turkey LOIs or stated p
32 Post contains links Ozair : So you have no issues supporting the Korean cruise missile purchase which, as indicated by the previously supplied link, is not an order but an LOI b
33 tommytoyz : The trend I spot is a never ending deferral of plans to execute an order the F-35 by all parties, including the US DOD and international partners. Ma
34 moo : What does your post have to do with my post? You made the claim that there was no timeline defined for Eurofighter air to ground capability enhanceme
35 tommytoyz : Thinking about the Korean fighter needs a bit, I think it is not the North Korean planes they need to deter or are concerned about, it is the Chinese
36 ThePointblank : Because the South Koreans are after a fighter with more emphasis on ground attack, which is what their F-4's and F-5's are primarily tasked with. The
37 Post contains links powerslide : Not looking good for EADS... http://www.spiegel.de/international/...ar-amid-mismanagment-a-910231.html
38 bikerthai : And if I am Korean which I am not, I would let the USA worry about deterring China and worry about what I need to do in a small scale tit for tat wit
39 Post contains links ThePointblank : New update: A possible split buy? http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...hter-bidding-idUSBRE96A06S20130711
40 Post contains links Agill : Well actually we'll buy them nomatter what the swiss do. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ircraft-gripen-e-programme-381184/
41 ThePointblank : Chewing on the situation, the only way to achieve the requested budget is for South Korea to change the buy to include lower and higher performance fi
42 Ozair : There are probably three options, 1. As you have above, a high and low mix. Probably not preferred as they already identified the aircraft they are i
43 bikerthai : Not familiar with the situation, but is the F-16 line still open? or will they have to get re-furb? bt
44 BigJKU : You can still buy new F-16's. The problem is I don't think it is politically possible to buy F-16's for this when you basically stopped buying F-16's
45 bikerthai : So, other than the three in contention, the only other active production line would be the F-18? bt
46 ThePointblank : Yes, excluding the ones being considered. Once you start to only consider active production fighters from the 3 contenders, the list shrinks. And if
47 BigJKU : Politically those would be nearly impossible to buy I would think. They are looking at much higher end stuff and with people around them getting F-35
48 ThePointblank : A split buy would make sense for now, say 30 F-35's coupled with 30 F-16 Block 52's. This would replace their F-4 and F-5 fleet very effectively, and
49 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Perhaps not for a warmed over F-16...but what about a stealthy Viper?..... http://www.aviationweek.com/media/im...size/Defense/Fighters/KF-X-KAI.jpg
50 BigJKU : Sure. Just write me a check for a few billion to develop and flight test this aircraft and you can have a few in 7-10 years. Eurofighter, Rafale, F-3
51 Post contains links ThePointblank : DAPA has requested 900 billion won on top of what was budgeted for F-X: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/07/116_140275.html The articl
52 Post contains links ThePointblank : Related news regarding an indigenous Korean fighter: there will likely be a very severe case of sticker shock judging from Turkey's efforts to develop
53 connies4ever : This just in: https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/koreas-fx-multirole-fighter-buy-phase-2-the-race-is-on-02966/ Amazingly, you appear to be wrong. F
54 ThePointblank : As someone else said on another forum: So in other words, the Koreans are going to get a discount on the acquisition cost going with F-15SE and Eurof
55 connies4ever : It's always rationalization with the F-35 cheerleaders, isn't it ? Bottom line, F-35 out for ROKAF. As for Typhoon being very deficient A2G, was true
56 Post contains links ThePointblank : Looks like we are both wrong. Eurofighter lost: http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/nati...01000000AEN20130818001400315F.html Reports are saying that wha
57 connies4ever : Interesting. It had crossed my mind that developing the SE for only 60 or so frames would seem to be more work than it's worth, so maybe Boeing can s
58 Post contains links ThePointblank : I would worry about the spare parts situation, as it was reported last year, that the ROKAF's F-15K fleet was twice as likely to be grounded compared
59 giblets : Anyone else a little bit puzzled that EADS are being disqualified from the process as their offer only inlcuded 6 twin seaters and did not meet the co
60 Ozair : There are a number of reasons for it but the real reason is probably political. Look at any fighter aircraft purchase over the last 20 years by non m
61 Post contains links ThePointblank : Uh-oh, maybe back to the drawing board again for the second time? The ROKAF is pushing to get the F-35 instead: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic South Korean F-X Fighter Bidding Extended
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
First South Korean Astronaut Launches posted Tue Apr 8 2008 08:20:52 by MadameConcorde
Korean-War Jet-Fighter Question posted Thu Sep 25 2008 11:10:05 by Blackbird
South African Built Jet Fighter posted Wed Sep 5 2007 02:16:52 by Jafa39
South Korea's Upcoming Fighter Choice? posted Tue Aug 28 2001 20:43:30 by CX747
Help Identifying Experimental Fighter posted Mon Jun 24 2013 16:05:11 by spudh
Turkey Plans To Build Local Fighter By 2023 posted Tue May 28 2013 02:43:24 by TK787
Both F-15SE And F-35 For South Korea? posted Fri May 24 2013 06:26:02 by bikerthai
South Korea Buys AH-64E's posted Wed Apr 17 2013 12:14:17 by ThePointblank
FG: Boeing Unveils F/A-XX Sixth-gen Fighter posted Mon Apr 8 2013 04:03:24 by travelavnut
F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea? posted Wed Apr 3 2013 15:52:29 by ThePointblank

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format