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 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8046 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 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8042 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, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7995 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, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7965 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 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7913 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, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7890 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, 3912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7848 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 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7833 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 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7758 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, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7684 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, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7673 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, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7657 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, 2094 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7542 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 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7476 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, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7432 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 onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3483 posts, RR: 27
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7421 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, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7421 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, 2094 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7415 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, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7402 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, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7388 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, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7381 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 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7341 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, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7331 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, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7329 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, 2094 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7266 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.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 7314 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 23):
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.

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 nothing in that capability dept. Though Korea has developed its own very capable cruise missile recently, I don't think it can be launched by any airborne platform. Thus Taurus is needed. Since Taurus is the only option and F-35 will not be able to carry it, while the Typhoon and F-15 can, that has to flow into the calculation. The F-35 is already capability challenged as it is till at least 2020. The inability to ever carry the Taurus only makes it even more so, in Korea's case.

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/0...-korea-deploys-new-cruise-missile/

....it is possible that the importance of the life cycle cost will be increased in the evaluation criteria to pressure the bidders to lower the prices, observers said.
- If this is true, with the high operating cost of the F-35, I just don't see it i Korea, since they're being very strict regarding the budget and certainly will not take any increases on the chin.

Maybe Grippen NG is in their future? The Grippen is the only other plane that can also carry the Taurus missile, so why not? It's pretty capable, especially against North Korea, which only has junk.

As to international F-35 sales, how many are on firm order right now? I can't seem to find that number. PB, perhaps you know?

[Edited 2013-07-09 11:46:59]

[Edited 2013-07-09 11:48:05]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7274 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
Maybe Grippen NG is in their future? The Grippen is the only other plane that can also carry the Taurus missile, so why not? It's pretty capable, especially against North Korea, which only has junk.

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 Sweden won't develop and buy Gripen NG without the Swiss, and the Swiss Parliament is not exactly keen on Gripen NG.

In addition, the Gripen NG is too similar to the existing South Korean F-16 fleet. It would make no sense to purchase Gripen NG when they already license produce the F-16, and have large numbers of F-16's already in service.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
Korea has no other viable option, since JASSM will not be sold to them by the USA.

There are a number of viable options: they could purchase more SLAM-ER's, the Turkish SOM (which is UAI compliant), the Israeli Popeye Turbo (South Korea is already a user of the Popeye missile), and Storm Shadow. Of those, SLAM-ER's, SOM can be readily fitted to the F-15K fleet, with the SOM requiring check fits and separation testing (no software integration required due to UAI compliance, just update the F-15K fleet with the latest UAI tape), while the rest will require software integration and separation testing.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
The inability to ever carry the Taurus only makes it even more so, in Korea's case.

May not be a problem because South Korea may be walking away from the Taurus missile.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
As to international F-35 sales, how many are on firm order right now? I can't seem to find that number. PB, perhaps you know?

Norway: 4+6 (they plan on ordering 6 every year for the next 8 years)
Japan: 42
Israel: 20 (will be the first foreign user to operate the F-35)
UK: 48 (more to be determined at a later date)
Italy: 90
Australia: 14
Turkey: 2


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7357 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
Norway: 4+6 (they plan on ordering 6 every year for the next 8 years)
Japan: 42
Israel: 20 (will be the first foreign user to operate the F-35)
UK: 48 (more to be determined at a later date)
Italy: 90
Australia: 14
Turkey: 2

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've found so far:

Italy 3 firm ordered to date
UK 4 firm orders to date
Australia 0 orders to date
Japan 4 firm orders to date

Real orders, not plans please.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7352 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 27):
Anyone else know how many actual firm F-35 international orders there are right now?

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 first flight.....) have aircraft in production. http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/au/...anufacturing-australian-f-35s.html

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
F-35 will not be able to carry it

Again, this is not correct information. The F-35 can carry the weapon but it is not integrated onto it.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
while the Typhoon and F-15 can

Again, this is not correct information. The F-15 can carry the weapon but it is not integrated onto it.

I still don't understand why the purchase of 60+ fighter aircraft by South Korea, with a contract value of greater than US$8 billion, hinges on an unsigned cruise missile contract for 170 missiles valued at less than US$400 million?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7294 times:

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 F-15. What Korean aircraft do you think it is for otherwise? Think.

It is clear Australia has placed zero F-35 orders. I didn't say anything about Holland. If you think otherwise, you are free to do so. Rely on LM press releases for your information at your peril, IMHO. I also could not find a date on the press release, which is very odd. Standard for LM apparently, to further confuse everyone.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7280 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 29):
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 F-15. What Korean aircraft do you think it is for otherwise? Think.

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.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 29):
It is clear Australia has placed zero F-35 orders.

You are right of course. LM has started production and will manufacture two aircraft for Australia for free, just because they like the country, the people are nice and kangaroo meat tastes great....  http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/aus...ir-power.aspx?pageID=238&nid=46163
Australia’s first two F-35s are due to be delivered in the United States in 2014-15. Australia will initially buy 14 F-35s, building up to three operational squadrons, of around 75 planes. The first squadron is due in service from around 2020.

http://australianaviation.com.au/201...-35-buy-citing-costs-and-us-delay/
The RAAF has so far ordered two F-35As, which are under production and are scheduled to be delivered to a US-based test and development site in 2014. Australia had been scheduled to move next financial year on plans to purchase a further 12 F-35As under phase 2A of Project Air 6000, and a further 58 F-35s under Phase 2B, but that decision will now be made in 2014-15, Smith said.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washingto...a-reaffirms-its-commitment-to.html
"Lockheed Martin is honored by the trust and confidence the Australian government showed in the F-35 program with today’s announcement," Lockheed said in a statement. "Along with the first two Australian jets in production, which will deliver in mid-2014, we will work closely with the government to support their purchase of their remaining 100 F-35 aircraft. Additionally, we will work with Australian industry supporting their participation in the production of components and sub-assemblies for the more than 3,000 F-35s to be built during the life of the program."

The above came from a Google search for "Australia purchases two F-35"

By the way, make sure you add Turkey to the above list, http://www.todayszaman.com/news-3148...htning-ii-aircraft-at-idef-13.html
Turkey's Undersecretariat for Defense Industries (SSM) signed an agreement on Wednesday with Lockheed Martin to make two additional purchases from the F-35 Lightning II family of aircraft


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7261 times:

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 plans as they are not firm orders yet.

Sure Korea "may" walk away from Taurus. Korea may also never order the F-35. California may sink into the ocean. When you phrase things like that, with the word "may" featured prominently in your statements - they are nothing statements, because anything is possible. I learned that in securities lawsuits. What are you saying? That in your opinion they are likely to walk away from Taurus?


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7233 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):
And no, I will not ad the Turkey LOIs or stated plans as they are not firm orders yet.

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 but you won't accept a Turkish LOI for two F-35?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):

Sure Korea "may" walk away from Taurus. Korea may also never order the F-35. California may sink into the ocean. When you phrase things like that, with the word "may" featured prominently in your statements - they are nothing statements, because anything is possible. I learned that in securities lawsuits.

Of course anything is possible but some things are obviously more likely than others. I don't claim to know the answers but if you look at this stuff for long enough you can spot the trends.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):
That in your opinion they are likely to walk away from Taurus?

I think they want Taurus but they are not willing to pay the price that is being proposed. http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20130705000594 states the following,

The parliamentary report said the country first set aside 221.3 billion won (US$194.14 million) for the missile acquisition plan and increased it to 411.9 billion won. But the Taurus manufacturer proposed a price tag of 568.8 billion won in 2011, and the price is likely to go up further given that the South Korean government is leading the deal through a private contract, not a competitive auction, the report said.

I would be hesitant to purchase the system if the apparent cost has risen by almost 300% as well. Also the report the news articles references is from the Korean version of the GAO and I don't know how much weight this organization has in Korean politics. Sole sourcing never helps either.

By my opinion is that South Korea will end up purchasing it, there are few other options that match the range and, from what I have read, it has some great capabilities. But, and there is always a but, I do not think this acquisition will have any bearing on the F-X purchase whatsoever. The cost to integrate the weapon on either the F-15 or F-35 is insignificant compared to the purchase and life cycle costs of any of the contenders. If they buy Taurus and chose an aircraft that can't currently use it, they will pay the cost to integrate it. After all, the aircraft will serve South Korea for a lot longer that the missile will.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7150 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 32):
you can spot the trends.

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. Many of these deferrals go beyond the time period by which the F-35 program has been delayed. Some countries like have said they may not order any, like Canada. This is the trend I see.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7012 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 9):

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 enhancements, which there patently is.

Sure, the F-15E has a current list which is longer than the Eurofighters, but its also a dedicated ground attack variant and comes with the drawbacks that that entails - the Eurofighter will be able to fulfill the roles of both the F-15C and E.

Sure, the F-35 will have a similar list of things integrated.

But that doesn't correct your earlier assertion that the Eurofighter doesn't have a defined capability upgrade timeline for air to ground.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 6975 times:

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 ones. That, to me, leaves only the Typhoon. It has the best A2A by a wide margin and the only one that has a prayer against the J-20. The F-15SE is slower and does not have the same maneuverability, especially at high speed.

But if budget is really the priority, I think the F-15 has the advantage.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6959 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 34):
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 enhancements, which there patently is.

Sure, the F-15E has a current list which is longer than the Eurofighters, but its also a dedicated ground attack variant and comes with the drawbacks that that entails - the Eurofighter will be able to fulfill the roles of both the F-15C and E.

Sure, the F-35 will have a similar list of things integrated.

But that doesn't correct your earlier assertion that the Eurofighter doesn't have a defined capability upgrade timeline for air to ground.

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. They will want the list of weapons that are compatible with the F-15SE and F-35, as those weapons are in their inventory, along with being present in the USAF inventory. Eurofighter's weapons integration status is subject to European timelines, there are already significant delays with integration of additional weapons, and as such, you can't declare "Eurofighter will have Brimestone capability by x date". The plans exist, but the funding doesn't.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
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 ones. That, to me, leaves only the Typhoon. It has the best A2A by a wide margin and the only one that has a prayer against the J-20. The F-15SE is slower and does not have the same maneuverability, especially at high speed.

Japan had the choice between Eurofighter and F-35 and eliminated Eurofighter early in their competition to select the F-35. Different nation in the same region, similar options on the table, and they went the other way. The Japanese decision will influence the South Korean decision, considering that South Korea and Japan are rivals in the region as well (little love lost between the two nations due to history).


User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6948 times:

Not looking good for EADS...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...ar-amid-mismanagment-a-910231.html

Quote:
Defense contractor EADS appears to have cut corners in its construction of the Eurofighter jet for the German military. The government faces billions in additional costs, but it doesn't want taxpayers to find out until after federal election this fall.

Together with European partners, the company that eventually became defense contractor EADS took 25 years to develop and produce the aircraft. Their aim was to prove that the Americans weren't the only ones capable of building high-tech fighter jets, but what has become Europe's largest defense project was ill-fated from the start.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2094 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6934 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
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 ones.

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 with my brother to the North.

Think about that recent incident with the training ship that was hit. What plane would be best to use if SK was to retaliate?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6445 times:

New update: A possible split buy?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...hter-bidding-idUSBRE96A06S20130711

Quote:
The defense minister will chair a meeting next Wednesday to review the failed bidding process so far. A range of options can be considered, include restarting the process from scratch, an official at the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said.

DAPA suspended bidding after none of the entries, Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 (LMT.N), Boeing Co's F-15 (BA.N) and EADS's Eurofighter Typhoon (EAD.PA), submitted bids meeting the required price.

"If the auction falls apart, we will consider all possible options, possibly including splitting the purchase, and find the best solution," the official said.

Officials at Boeing and Lockheed said they were waiting for details on the way forward in the competition.

Boeing spokeswoman Amy Horton said Boeing had proposed a competitive price for its new F-15SE fighters, as well as a comprehensive program involving technology transfer and work for South Korean industry.

Lockheed spokesman Michael Rein said Lockheed remained convinced that its F-35 fighter offered a significant increase in combat capability. He said the company would continue to asset the U.S. government in their offer to the Korean government.

South Korea has been pushing to buy 60 fighters to replace its ageing jets, such as F-5s and F-4s, starting from 2017, in order to better face threats posed by North Korea's missile and nuclear programs.

Given the close military ties with the United States, experts said U.S. manufacturers are favored over Eurofighter.

However, differences over price have delayed the final selection, which DAPA previously said was planned in June.

Apart from capabilities of the individual aircraft, South Korea is also focusing on the offset value of the bids and the assistance that competitors will offer for its homegrown fighter jet development program.


User currently offlineAgill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1010 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6390 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
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 Sweden won't develop and buy Gripen NG without the Swiss, and the Swiss Parliament is not exactly keen on Gripen NG.

Well actually we'll buy them nomatter what the swiss do.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ircraft-gripen-e-programme-381184/


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6241 times:

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 fighter tiers, which would add less expensive competitors to the mix. That would leave EADS in a bind, however, and increase the pressure for fleet compatibility in at least one of the tiers. Lockheed Martin would have a major edge, as additional F-16's would be a very strong contender in that scenario, as it would fit with the ROKAF’s F-16 fleet and be cost effective. Boeing could only counter with either additional F-15K's or F/A-18 E/F's, but with the high cost of both the F-15K and F/A-18E/F's, a Boeing offering would not be as cost effective and hit South Korea's budget target.

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6224 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 41):

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 fighter tiers, which would add less expensive competitors to the mix.

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 interested in. Changing to a high/low would introduce significant time and cost issues for future fleet support as well. I wouldn't want to have to judge an acquisition when each manufacturer is bidding two airframes in place on one.

2. Split the order between two manufacturers, perhaps a 30/30 split. You lose the quantity discount you get with a 60 aircraft order over a 30 aircraft order as well as increasing logistical complexity. May not be able to get below budgetary constraints.

3. Split the purchase in time. Buy 30-40 jets now for delivery 2017-19 and 30-40 jets for delivery 2022-2024. While this has the issues above of possibly multiple fleet types it reduces the initial cost to within budgetary constraints.

4. I know I said three options but the fourth option remains the existing contract for 60 jets all within 2017-21 timeframe and probably the only way to secure the best overall deal.

So who is advantaged by each?

1. As above probably LM and then Boeing over EADS.

2. Boeing certainly an advantage given the F-15K already in service. May also assist EADS. The timeframe is still tight for F-35 unless you take them around 2020-21.

3. Good for Boeing and EADS for the first buy while you would have to say LM would have the greatest chance with the second given full production cost reductions and maturing airframe.

4. Still anyone's game but favouring Boeing and EADS given F-35 software timeframes.

Final question is, how long can the F-5s and F-4 last?


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2094 posts, RR: 4
Reply 43, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6159 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 41):
Lockheed Martin would have a major edge, as additional F-16's would be a very strong contender in that scenario,

Not familiar with the situation, but is the F-16 line still open? or will they have to get re-furb?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 879 posts, RR: 12
Reply 44, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6167 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 43):
Not familiar with the situation, but is the F-16 line still open? or will they have to get re-furb?

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 as near as I can tell in the 1990's. Particularly when everyone around is moving on from their F-16's in the relatively near future. If you bought the latest and greatest F-16 your savings would not be as huge as you might think either.

I think the reality is that South Korea ends up paying more for one fighter. They tend to try this low cost ceiling thing from time to time. I guess they want to see if they can get someone to buy the deal from them. What they usually end up doing is paying more to get what they want. They tried to get their F-16's upgraded for a fixed cost and ended up paying 4 times that to get it done.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2094 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6102 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 44):

So, other than the three in contention, the only other active production line would be the F-18?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6095 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 45):

So, other than the three in contention, the only other active production line would be the F-18?

bt

Yes, excluding the ones being considered. Once you start to only consider active production fighters from the 3 contenders, the list shrinks. And if this continues to be a split buy with a high and low end, additional F-16's are the obvious choice for fleet commonality.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 879 posts, RR: 12
Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6099 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 46):

Yes, excluding the ones being considered. Once you start to only consider active production fighters from the 3 contenders, the list shrinks. And if this continues to be a split buy with a high and low end, additional F-16's are the obvious choice for fleet commonality.

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's Korea is not going to settle for warmed over F-16's.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6097 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 47):
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's Korea is not going to settle for warmed over F-16's.

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 give the South Koreans a high end F-35 force. It would be a massive upgrade over the F-4's and F-5's.

A heavily upgraded F-16 is still a very capable fighter; witness what the UAE done to the F-16 in the ultimate F-16 Block 60 variant.

If the South Koreans insist on their current budget, a split buy is the only option to preserve fleet size, otherwise, they will be cutting their purchase. Ultimately, the South Korean government will have to think about what's more important; preserving fleet size while maintaining their budget, paying more while preserving fleet size, or maintaining the budget and cutting numbers.


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4798 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5590 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 47):
They are looking at much higher end stuff and with people around them getting F-35's Korea is not going to settle for warmed over F-16's.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 48):
A heavily upgraded F-16 is still a very capable fighter; witness what the UAE done to the F-16 in the ultimate F-16 Block 60 variant.

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

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_07_22_2013_p33-598290.xml

Quote:
"a KF-X derived from a current type would demand less engineering and may benefit from stronger pricing by avoiding competition with the Lockheed Martin F-35, although Saab is already in the market for advanced but moderately sized fighters with its Gripen E/F.

The T-50 and its FA-50 light fighter derivative are themselves based on the F-16 and were developed with help from Lockheed Martin, but the stealthy concept, called KF-X-E, departs from the F-16 planform used for the earlier aircraft. Some wing and fuselage edges are parallel, and the trailing edges of the main and tail planes are swept forward. The fuselage sides have chines. Nose volume of the KF-X-E appears to be small, limiting the size of the radar antenna, but the airframe seems to have more volume overall than the T-50, offering more space for internal fuel and thereby minimizing the need for external tanks and their radar reflections.

Retention of the single tail on the KF-X-E is emblematic of the limited ambition of the designers, who appear to have aimed at achieving a level of stealth above that of the Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet but well below that of the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35."


Using a single, upgraded F414 or EJ2000 engine may limit performance and loadout...but something with the thrust of current F-16 powerplants could make it a winner.


Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 48):
If the South Koreans insist on their current budget, a split buy is the only option to preserve fleet size, otherwise, they will be cutting their purchase.

A comment on the above article said Boeing's bid alone was within striking distance of the tender's budget. This would put Boeing in pole position to partner the South Koreans on their KFX-E project. A reverse 4.5 Gen Silent Eagle and 5th Gen KFX-E could be the winning combination going forward.

However, methinks a Boeing win would migrate what they were doing on their 'stealthy bug' to the KFX-E.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th.../05/fa-18f-cft-weapons-pod-mockup/


Other thread here.....

Stealthy Bug, Anyone? (by Devilfish May 25 2013 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

[Edited 2013-07-25 10:35:23]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 879 posts, RR: 12
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 weeks ago) and read 5570 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 49):
Perhaps not for a warmed over F-16...but what about a stealthy Viper?.....

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-35 ect have all run well late and well over budget for development. Check the price on a next generation Gripen as well for that matter and they have not even really started building it yet. Why anyone would want to enter development hell for less than a few hundred fighters is beyond me.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5086 times:

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 article notes that increasing the budget would give F-35 a edge in the competition, and any further delays will also help strengthen F-35's hand.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5054 times:

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 a similar fighter. Turkey is estimating to develop and procure 200 indigenous 4.5 gen fighters, they are looking at $31 – $33 billion sans engine if everything goes well. Which won’t happen, especially if Turkey pushes for ambitious specifications. This includes a $11 - $13 billion dollar development costs that will be associated with developing their own fighter.

That math offers daunting odds for a national jet program, and much of the same math can be expected to apply to KF-X. It is highly unlikely that Turkey will achieve a price per unit of $100 million dollars for their indigenous fighter (sans engine), and the math for South Korea isn't going to be looking so good either. That would make buying F-35's at their most expensive point look like a bargain when all is said and done.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/tur...pageID=238&nID=51642&NewsCatID=483


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4353 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 10):
F-35 is a major contender here, and I would not be too surprised if South Korea chooses F-35.

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-35 is disqualified, F-15SE and Typhoon are in, and EADS have offered local assembly. Not the end of the day for F-35, but we can all hope.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4348 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 53):
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-35 is disqualified, F-15SE and Typhoon are in, and EADS have offered local assembly. Not the end of the day for F-35, but we can all hope.

As someone else said on another forum:

Quote:
The F-35 was bought through the FMS process; ie you pay what the US government pays. You can't buy an equipment any less; that is against US Law. Because ROK was insistent to have most of its jets delivered by 2018, the fighters would be bought in the last LRIP lots before FRP occurred... probably in the $95~105 million range.

Because a significant portion of the F-15SE was done through DCMS, its flyaway might be in the $85 to 95 million range during that time. Really Boeing could (and probably did) severely underbid here. Its possible A: they basically did not put any contingency and if there are cost overruns. It depends on how the contract is set up... fixed cost or fixed cost with penalties. Its possible... but unlikely.

B:they intend to run this as a commercial program. Basically they provide a deep discount on the acquisition price, then inflate the parts. Looking at the previous problem that the ROKAF had with the F-15K and its PBL... I wouldn't be too surprised that this is what Boeing intends to do.

This is also where the ROAKAF will get fleeced because of its mandatory requirements that excluded the F-35. Boeing is now against the Eurofighter, which has exceptionally high maintenence costs related to parts. Also the F-15E probably has significant advantages in interoperability and A2G (something the Eurofighter is very deficient). Consequently Boeing can safely offer a somewhat higher lifecycle cost and recoup the discount on the acquisition price. The F-35 can't do that through FMS... so the ROKAF's best tool for leverage on price gets excluded. Boeing is going to win and do so while making a very tidy profit.

This is an example of bad contract design, or the deficiencies surrounding the F-35's FMS process. Push the contract back by two years, or modify the competition so the mandatory requirement on cost is weakened (and considered together with lifecycle and the F-35 wins.

So in other words, the Koreans are going to get a discount on the acquisition cost going with F-15SE and Eurofighter, but the supplier can make that up by increasing the costs for spares and support and make a very tidy profit as a result. LM can't do that because of the FMS process.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4233 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 54):
So in other words, the Koreans are going to get a discount on the acquisition cost going with F-15SE and Eurofighter, but the supplier can make that up by increasing the costs for spares and support and make a very tidy profit as a result. LM can't do that because of the FMS process.

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 for Tranche 1 & 2, but Tranche 3 will correct this. This will be (my guess) what ROKAF order.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4233 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 55):
This will be (my guess) what ROKAF order.

Looks like we are both wrong. Eurofighter lost:
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/nati...01000000AEN20130818001400315F.html

Quote:
SEOUL, Aug. 18 (Yonhap) - The Eurofighter Tranche 3 Typhoon by the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) has reportedly been eliminated from South Korea's multibillion-dollar project to buy new fighter jets, leaving Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle as the sole final candidate, government sources in Seoul said Sunday.

Earlier on Sunday, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration said that one of the two finalists -- Boeing and EADS -- in the nation's 8.3 trillion won (US$7.2 billion) fighter project has dropped out of the bidding due to problems with their documents.

EADS is known as the company to have stepped out of the race, according to sources in Seoul.

"We disqualified the concerned company and will consider the remaining one firm as a candidate in the committee for defense procurement projects," the national procurement agency said, citing "flaws found in the bidding documents" as reasons of the elimination. It did not elaborate on what kind of document flaws was found.

Reports are saying that what EADS did to get under the requested bid price was to cut the number of twin-seaters to 6 from the requested 15, and offered prices based on the British pound, along with eliminating additional weapons integration, demanding that Korea take the Typhoon as is, with minimal A2G performance.

I'm wondering if the Koreans have learned anything from their cross strait rivals regarding trying to develop a new platform based on an old one? It doesn't save money when so-few airframes are involved. Perhaps Boeing managed to talk them into merely buying an product refreshed K-model (which actually makes good sense), but we'll have to wait a bit to see what the details are for the offered F-15SE.

[Edited 2013-08-18 12:25:33]

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4194 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 56):
I'm wondering if the Koreans have learned anything from their cross strait rivals regarding trying to develop a new platform based on an old one? It doesn't save money when so-few airframes are involved. Perhaps Boeing managed to talk them into merely buying an product refreshed K-model (which actually makes good sense), but we'll have to wait a bit to see what the details are for the offered F-15SE.

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 sweet talk the ROKAF into buying more Ks.. From a commonality p.o.v. it makes sense.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4057 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 57):
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 sweet talk the ROKAF into buying more Ks.. From a commonality p.o.v. it makes sense.

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 to every other type of fighter they operated owing to the slow delivery and high costs of replacement parts:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/01/116_103849.html

This coupled with a report that since the F-15K fleet was introduced, maintenance costs increased 10-fold over a period of 4 years, without a increase in availability rates:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/07/116_104752.html

And this is why I say that although South Korea would be getting a discount on the purchase price, Boeing would be able to recoup the discount in the maintenance and spare parts. Just goes to show that it's not purchase price that should drive acquisition, but lifecycle costs.


User currently offlinegiblets From UK - England, joined Jun 2013, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3932 times:

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 contractual requirement to provide 45 single seaters and 15 twin seaters.....

The F35 is NOT available as a two seater!
The F15SE is not available as a single seater!


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3802 times:

Quoting giblets (Reply 59):
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 contractual requirement to provide 45 single seaters and 15 twin seaters.....

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 manufacturing countries. I have no issues saying that over 50% were decided not on capability grounds but on political or financial/bribery influence.

In this case, the ROKAF has a fighter fleet that is entirely of US origin. Even the FA-50 is essentially a US airframe given the technology incorporated. The US is of course SK's largest and most important ally and it should be no surprise SK found a reason to remove the Eurofighter on a technicality.

From an Australian perspective, I am aware of a number of acquisition programs that have submitted the preferred option to government but have been overruled and ordered to purchase the alternative version, be it European or American. In most cases it was related to which way the political situation, UN Security Council seat counting, the preference of a specific Defence minister etc was swinging.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3441 times:

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....l/AW_08_26_2013_p18-609191.xml&p=1

Quote:
Boeing's F-15SE Silent Eagle has been selected as the only qualified bidder in South Korea's F-X Phase 3 competition for 60 fighters—but the country's air force is lobbying to overturn the decision in favor of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

A win in South Korea would extend the F-15 production line into the next decade and launch an improved version that could compete for future fighter requirements in the 2020s. That outcome seems likely following the decision of the South Korean purchasing authority, the Defense Acquisition Program Agency (DAPA), to eliminate first the F-35 as too costly and then the Eurofighter Typhoon for a bidding irregularity—although EADS, representing the consortium in the South Korean deal, disputes DAPA's decision.

A cross-government committee chaired by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin will meet next month to rule on DAPA's decision. The review group will include air force officers, a member of the parliament's defense committee, an official from the finance ministry and the heads of DAPA and the Agency for Defense Development, which wants to lead indigenous industry in the development of its own stealthy fighter, the KF-X (AW&ST April 29, p. 46).

The finance ministry may back DAPA's fiscally conservative choice, but the air force has already shown its colors in fighting for the F-35.

“Some in the air force complain that the F-X Phase 3 is veering onto a wrong course, contrary to original aims,” the Yonhap news agency reported Aug. 20, a few days after DAPA's decision was disclosed. The “original aim,” as seen by the unnamed officers quoted by Yonhap, was evidently an F-35 order, and their attitude seems to be that the other two contenders were invited to bid just for the sake of creating competition.


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