By: TomcatViP
- 24th September 2013 at 22:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
South Korea kept Typhoon and F-15SE in the competition as a stalking horse to get LM to drop the price of F-35. But F-35 prices barely include profit without that type of pressure.
This is highly probable. That's typically the kind of tactics you get when you push a certain type of ppl in charge of large complex projects.
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 24th September 2013 at 23:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What I don't understand is how they formulated the requirements.
My point is this: IF the Air Force is adament that they need a VLO fighter then they SHOULD formulate the requirements to reflect this.
Or did they do that but were ignored?
Of course formulating such requirements is very tricky because if you do it in a manner that upfront excludes e.g. the F-15SE then you end up with no competition....
People would have complained no matter what they did.
If they are honest about what they want and select the F-35 without holding a competition where the other competitors couldn't hope to compete, as has been the case for several F-35 buyers, people complain that there wasn't a competition.
If they hold a competition despite knowing that the F-35 is really what they want... then people complain when the F-35 inevitably wins.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 25th September 2013 at 00:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another case of typing before thinking... :rolleyes:
The Koreans are replacing third generation jets(F-4 and F-5) with 5th generation jets. Given that the F-4 and F-5 were replaced in many cases by F-16s and F-18s, the F-35 is absolutely the most logical replacement if they are going to skip a generation.
A true genius has spoken. Too bad that in your endless arrogance you have completely missed my and BIO's point. Let me write it down slowly so that even you can grasp it.
Harriers = STOVL = replaced by F-35B
Hornets = CATOBAR = replaced by F-35C
If I say SoKo don't operate Harriers and Hornets, then I mean that the advantage of existence of STOVL and carrier-borne versions applies well for US but don't cut for SoKo. No bullsh!t about F-4s or F-5s... You getting it yet?
Think, seriously... South Korea may not operate those platforms... but does that mean they aren't concerned about their ability to operate with those platforms?
You getting it yet? :confused:
Find a single mention about that in their requirements and we can talk.. Until then, get off my screen.
By: thobbes
- 25th September 2013 at 00:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe if South Korea wasn't buying at least 100 F/A-50s they could've topped the FX-III budget up to allow 60+ F-35s.
To be honest most military/government procurement competitions are just bureaucratic rigmaroles designed to pretend its an open and transparent process when in most instances the winner was always selected from the onset (speaking from experience here!).
By: lookieloo
- 25th September 2013 at 00:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...get off my screen.
:p Jeez, someone's a sad panda today.
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 25th September 2013 at 01:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A true genius has spoken. Too bad that in your endless arrogance you have completely missed my and BIO's point. Let me write it down slowly so that even you can grasp it.
Harriers = STOVL = replaced by F-35B
Hornets = CATOBAR = replaced by F-35C
If I say SoKo don't operate Harriers and Hornets, then I mean that the advantage of existence of STOVL and carrier-borne versions applies well for US but don't cut for SoKo. No bullsh!t about F-4s or F-5s... You getting it yet?
Let me try to make this simple enough for you. The F-4 and F-5 are third generation jets. These jets have largely already been retired, in most cases being replaced by either F-16s or F-18s, not just in the US, worldwide.
The F-35 is the replacement for both the F-16 and F-18, and so it is a perfectly logical replacement for an F-4 or F-5 if an operator skips a generation.
Neither the F-35B, nor the F-35C need to come into this discussion at all. F-35As are replacing land based F-18s in both Australia and Canada.
Bottom line, the F-35 is absolutely the logical replacement for S. Korea's F-4s and F-5s and that should be obvious... :rolleyes:
Find a single mention about that in their requirements and we can talk.. Until then, get off my screen.
You were the one that made a fool of yourself, it won't help things one bit to get upset at me about it. Next time take a moment to think things through before slapping your keyboard and you won't have these sorts of issues.
By: thobbes
- 25th September 2013 at 01:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only problem is F-35 is only replacing F-4Es (currently 1 operational wing of about 60+ aircraft).
F-5 is being replaced by F/A-50.
F/A-50 might be fine for swatting barely operational North Korean MiG-21s but not for pretending to be a player in the Asia Pacific which is a stated South Korean objective (blue water navy, amphibs, long range strike).
As it stands South Korean fleet will looks as follows by 2020-25:
60 FX-3 (most likely F-35)
60 F-15K (assumes no attrition)
168 F-16C/D-30/52 (assumes no attrition)
100+ F/A-50
I'm not sold on F/A-50 as anything but an air policing jet.
As for KF-X, I'm not sold on that being delivered quickly either or even close to on budget - look at Turkish estimates of $33 billion for developing and producing up to 200 jets.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 25th September 2013 at 01:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Let me try to make this simple enough for you. The F-4 and F-5 are third generation jets. These jets have largely already been retired, in most cases being replaced by either F-16s or F-18s, not just in the US, worldwide.
The F-35 is the replacement for both the F-16 and F-18, and so it is a perfectly logical replacement for an F-4 or F-5 if an operator skips a generation.
Neither the F-35B, nor the F-35C need to come into this discussion at all. F-35As are replacing land based F-18s in both Australia and Canada.
Look, hopsalot. You have entered a debate you have not been a part of, in the first place.
Now you came, started to talk some crap about completely different things that were discussed.. No one wanted you there.. Your thirty lines of Mr.Smart bullsh!t have completely ruined the original topic.. I personally find your presence extremely disturbing..
Anyway, let me put it quickly.. The topic was not about whether the F-35 can replace the F-4/F-5. Of course it can. I know that, BIO knows that, you know that. But we have been discussing something entirely else. Fine, now please, get lost.. Thanks.
Bottom line, the F-35 is absolutely the logical replacement for S. Korea's F-4s and F-5s and that should be obvious... :rolleyes:
Read above..
You were the one that made a fool of yourself, it won't help things one bit to get upset at me about it. Next time take a moment to think things through before slapping your keyboard and you won't have these sorts of issues.
By: thobbes
- 25th September 2013 at 02:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure what all the angst is about.
It was always clear if budget was increased or required number of airframes reduced/made more flexible, F-35 would get first prize.
Militaries around the world are going as far as to gut their capabilities to get F-35s so why not South Korea?
And if you allowed F-35 to compete in Middle East (other than Israel), you'd be seeing them brought in droves by Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf states. Which means zero sales for Typhoon and Rafale in that region. Lucky for Dassault and Airbus that the Jewish lobby has such strong influence in Washington.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 25th September 2013 at 02:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, boo hoo...
....
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 25th September 2013 at 02:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure what all the angst is about.
It was always clear if budget was increased or required number of airframes reduced/made more flexible, F-35 would get first prize.
Militaries around the world are going as far as to gut their capabilities to get F-35s so why not South Korea?
Which naturally doesn't say anything at all about the capabilities the F-35 offers... all those forces have just lost their minds completely.
By: thobbes
- 25th September 2013 at 02:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now you're putting words in my mouth.
F-35 offers excellent capabilities as well as excellent potential economies of scale (if things go according to plan), excellent global wide logistics and of course is American.
All of these add up to an excellent recipe that the Europeans can't compete against.
Remember Rafale lost out to F-15s and F-16s in other competitions.
Only way Euros can compete is if it's an area where political sensitivities don't allow export of F-35.
Ruskis are far smarter and focus their marketing in this area.
You F-35 fanbois gotta stop being so defensive all the time.
By: bring_it_on
- 25th September 2013 at 03:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SoKo don't operate Harriers. They don't operate Hornets. They are not in need for a fighter perfectly integrated in a network of F-22s, B-2s, UCLASS, LRS-B or F-XX/NGAD. And you know why? Because they don't and will not have F-22s, B-2s, UCLASS, LRS-B or F-XX. They best they can hope for is to be connected with air defense assets, AWACS and future UAV/UCAVs.
Why are you addressing Korean needs with an ode on how the F-35 fits greatly into US integrated network is beyond me. Personally, I don't think they give damn..
Last time i checked it was a F-35 thread not a ROKAF thread. Second, If you actually bothered reading the conversation I was having with Halow, you'd notice that We were talking about the genesis of the F-35 in general, i.e. I responded to his comment that it was "wrong birth" or whatever...
Why are you addressing Korean needs with an ode on how the F-35 fits greatly into US integrated network is beyond me. Personally, I don't think they give damn..
Just check the context in which i made the comment...
Now the ROKAF is not going to fight alone, integrating with the large F-35 fleet (USAF, USN etc) and the US network in general is and should be important to them.
Im afraid that overall it brings a monopoly... you forgot that helmet isnt working and many pilots are afraid of disorientation it could bring.
I am afraid that you are only reading the VANITY fair article and not reading periodic updates on the helmet issues and the on going development of an alternate helmet as a hedge against delays in the primary one. The issues have been known for a long time now, the fixes have been developed and increment corrections are being incorporated and tested. Helmet is not a deal breaker...If at all its gonna push the Marines IOC back a few months, those wanting the F-35 in 2020+ I(as ROKAF) will hardly bother..
n aerodynamic fix aka reopening flight domain
Flight domain is being openend. Eglen just got restrictions lifted so that they could expand the flight domain.
Other datalinks exisr or can be implemented on existong platforms (see F18...).
Data links are only one aspect a COMMON PICTURE is another..While a F-18 can be given MADL, it cannot do as much as a F-35 with it. The entire gensis behind MADL and future high speed data links is to link up crafts that have tremendous SA inherently built into them..that can be used fleet wide...20-30 F-35's flying around over a large air space (coalition crafts, ROKAF all combined) can beem out a very comprehensive ISR long distance picture that is SIMILAR (Compatible since all use the same sensors and DLs) and tactically useful
How will you fix pbs like fragility, senstivity to storms etc without adding weight and further dgrading kinematics?
You just have to take time and search for solutions that are designed (and that will be incorporated very soon) that provide protection. They have been talked about publically by the Program Head...I am not sure whether the Vanity Fair article mentioned them.
And the most complex part (integration) has just started...
Just started? Are you joking? 2(a) has been delivered, EOTS, EODAS and -81 can now be used fully integrated by the training jets at Eglin. 2(b) will be delivered in a few months..This is the version that the USMC IOC's with in 2015. The level of capability in terms of weapons and software integration that ROKAF will get will be more than they can ask for in 2020+ as all 3 versions of the jet would have been operational by then
not talking about ridiculous engineering issue of arresting hook etc.
You mean the arresting hook that ROKAF can't give a rat's A$$ about, or the one for which the solution has already been developed and sea trials scheduled for next year?
The JPO is not going to push forward sea trials just to shut up a Vanity Fair article..
Maybe it will be a good (despite ugly) plane... In 15 years?
2(B) USMC IOC 2015, USAF IOC with early block 3 capability 2016 and USN with 3(C) in 2018. 15 years from now we'd probably see a VC engine come aboard, and major activity in DEW's...
I find it very strange that they refer to NK as an argument for going with the F-35 and not the F-15SE -- looking at the capabilities NK got, I struggle to see what use they really have for the F-35?
Those advocating for it, want its ability to silently go out and conduct surgical strike...Stealth here is more to bring an element of surprise rather than to defeat A2AD threat of NOKO.
By: thobbes
- 25th September 2013 at 03:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Those advocating for it, want its ability to silently go out and conduct surgical strike...Stealth here is more to bring an element of surprise rather than to defeat A2AD threat of NOKO.
Fair enough but I just can't see SoKo ever doing a preemptive strike on NoKo.
It's a great way of having 10s of thousands of artillery, rocket and missile rounds pepper cities around the DMZ including chunks of Seoul. And no amount of Western tech is going to stop that kind of brute force.
North Korea is far more willing to do beligerent acts than South Korea and any "surgical strike" would bring down a massive response from a regime scarred for it's own survival.
Not saying they shouldn't buy F-35s, just looking at political/military ramifications of any pre-emptive South Korean strike.
I think F-35 is ideal choice for South Korea. No doubt they will buy more when they figure out KFX will blow a massive hole in the budget for little capability.
By: thobbes
- 25th September 2013 at 04:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I just want to know how they can just pull the extra billions out of their butts.
Surely that has ramifications somewhere.
Here in Oz even we were rich we couldn't just pull that kind of money out of our butts unless it was pork barrelling to minority seats in an election year. And the result of that is deficit budgets and diverting tax payer dollars to interest payments.
And then it was never funded properly anyway - Oz Commonwealth funding is a poison chalice. Tis why yours truly has a $1 million structural deficit on one $13 million dollar budget and had a $2 million structural deficit in another $12 million dollar unit (which thankfully got taken away from me when we went through our 4th restructure in 5 years).
And when you tell the big bosses (Departmental Secretaries and Ministers) "if you want me to come in on budget, either give me more money or let me cutback some services or even give me the legislative power to raise revenue," the big bosses just freak out and look away.
Western fiscal responsibility and democratic decision making at it's best.
By: bring_it_on
- 25th September 2013 at 04:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Then you must open yourself up to the entire program and its activities, not just concentrate on KNOWN issues with KNOWN (largely) fixes that are in the stage of development, integration and/or testing...
Here is something on very recent developments on the topic(s) mentioned by you..
st year, I threw a hand grenade into the crowd,” Bogdan said of his public chastising of Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney, which makes engines for all three variants of F-35. “That was intentional. A lot has changed since then. Some hasn’t changed as fast as I would have liked. … We are making some good progress.”
The technical issues we’ve had are well understood and are being retired,” Martin said. “We are addressing and retiring risks on the program. We’ll continue to focus on them but we are putting them behind us.”
Both Bogdan and Martin said they were were confident the Marine Corps will have an operational aircraft on time, meaning sometime between August and December 2015. Martin insisted the service would have at least 12 fully operational aircraft by that date. The basing decision for the Air Force’s first JSF squadron is expected sometime in November, Martin said.
F-35 team makes headway with helmet-mounted display
Lockheed Martin, Vision Systems International and the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) are making progress with solving night vision acuity problems on the F-35's helmet-mounted display, says a senior test pilot assigned to the programme.
Test pilots recently tested a modified second-generation helmet fitted with a new 1600x1200 resolution ISIE-11 night vision camera coupled with a new display management computer/helmet, says Lt Col Matt Kelly, an F-35 test pilot assigned to the JPO.
Kelly says the ISIE-11 immensely improves the helmet's night vision capabilities.
"The ISIE-11 has great potential for tactical operations," Kelly says of the new system. However, there is still a lot of work to do before the helmet is ready for fleet release - the system will have to be demonstrated in the air before test pilots give it a green light.
Meanwhile, the F-35 JPO is still funding parallel development work on a BAE Systems-developed helmet into the third quarter of 2014.
F-35B test pilots on the USS Wasp are using the existing helmet with the current ISIE-10 camera, which has been judged to have deficient night-vision performance.
The ISIE-10 has inferior night vision capability compared with the ANVIS-9 night vision goggles (NVGs) used in the Boeing AV-8B and F/A-18. However, pilots say it is easier to land the F-35B unaided by the night vision camera on a ship than a AV-8B with NVGs.
By: bring_it_on
- 25th September 2013 at 04:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
true genius has spoken. Too bad that in your endless arrogance you have completely missed my and BIO's point. Let me write it down slowly so that even you can grasp it.
Harriers = STOVL = replaced by F-35B
Hornets = CATOBAR = replaced by F-35C
Dude calm down and re-read my reply. It was to a general comment made by Halloween directed towards the F-35. It was not made in the ROKAF context at all.
By: JSR
- 25th September 2013 at 05:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I just want to know how they can just pull the extra billions out of their butts.
Surely that has ramifications somewhere.
.
you mean south korea. well they have been building factories left and right in China. so cheap labor and huge market. very unreliable way of money.
I dont think they can afford 60 F-35 thats why they have to restart the competition and will buy the planes at much slower pace.
otherwise no need to put artificial price caps.
By: bring_it_on
- 25th September 2013 at 05:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fair enough but I just can't see SoKo ever doing a preemptive strike on NoKo.
You plan to field capability that give you options..You have your regular POUNDING BOMB truck fleets with the F-15K's and Vipers that do all the carpet bombing or take out whatever targets you may see fit. While the capability of discreetly targeting Noko is not available. With a nut in control of the NOKO, you could hardly blame the ROKAF for demanding such a capability in case the idiot ups his capability in the coming years/decades and decides to attack SOKO and place launchers on stand by tipped with nuclear warheads...To take those sort of targets out, you really need to go in quietly and bring in an element of surprise so that the idiot does not launch them in panic. The ROKAF have increasingly become aggressive when it comes to the North koreans and they are within their right to seek a comprehensive ability to neutralize nuclear or conventional threats originating from north korea (Be it bombing artillery or taking out nuclear missiles or surgical strikes on key nuclear establishments)..We can hardly predict what a maniac would do in a decade or 2..ROKAF wants to prepare for all eventualities...
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 24th September 2013 at 22:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is highly probable. That's typically the kind of tactics you get when you push a certain type of ppl in charge of large complex projects.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 24th September 2013 at 23:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
People would have complained no matter what they did.
If they are honest about what they want and select the F-35 without holding a competition where the other competitors couldn't hope to compete, as has been the case for several F-35 buyers, people complain that there wasn't a competition.
If they hold a competition despite knowing that the F-35 is really what they want... then people complain when the F-35 inevitably wins.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 25th September 2013 at 00:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A true genius has spoken. Too bad that in your endless arrogance you have completely missed my and BIO's point. Let me write it down slowly so that even you can grasp it.
Harriers = STOVL = replaced by F-35B
Hornets = CATOBAR = replaced by F-35C
If I say SoKo don't operate Harriers and Hornets, then I mean that the advantage of existence of STOVL and carrier-borne versions applies well for US but don't cut for SoKo. No bullsh!t about F-4s or F-5s... You getting it yet?
Find a single mention about that in their requirements and we can talk.. Until then, get off my screen.Posts: 2,120
By: thobbes - 25th September 2013 at 00:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe if South Korea wasn't buying at least 100 F/A-50s they could've topped the FX-III budget up to allow 60+ F-35s.
To be honest most military/government procurement competitions are just bureaucratic rigmaroles designed to pretend its an open and transparent process when in most instances the winner was always selected from the onset (speaking from experience here!).
Posts: 46
By: lookieloo - 25th September 2013 at 00:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:p Jeez, someone's a sad panda today.Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 25th September 2013 at 01:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Let me try to make this simple enough for you. The F-4 and F-5 are third generation jets. These jets have largely already been retired, in most cases being replaced by either F-16s or F-18s, not just in the US, worldwide.
The F-35 is the replacement for both the F-16 and F-18, and so it is a perfectly logical replacement for an F-4 or F-5 if an operator skips a generation.
Neither the F-35B, nor the F-35C need to come into this discussion at all. F-35As are replacing land based F-18s in both Australia and Canada.
Bottom line, the F-35 is absolutely the logical replacement for S. Korea's F-4s and F-5s and that should be obvious... :rolleyes:
You were the one that made a fool of yourself, it won't help things one bit to get upset at me about it. Next time take a moment to think things through before slapping your keyboard and you won't have these sorts of issues.
:cool:
Posts: 2,120
By: thobbes - 25th September 2013 at 01:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only problem is F-35 is only replacing F-4Es (currently 1 operational wing of about 60+ aircraft).
F-5 is being replaced by F/A-50.
F/A-50 might be fine for swatting barely operational North Korean MiG-21s but not for pretending to be a player in the Asia Pacific which is a stated South Korean objective (blue water navy, amphibs, long range strike).
As it stands South Korean fleet will looks as follows by 2020-25:
60 FX-3 (most likely F-35)
60 F-15K (assumes no attrition)
168 F-16C/D-30/52 (assumes no attrition)
100+ F/A-50
I'm not sold on F/A-50 as anything but an air policing jet.
As for KF-X, I'm not sold on that being delivered quickly either or even close to on budget - look at Turkish estimates of $33 billion for developing and producing up to 200 jets.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 25th September 2013 at 01:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Look, hopsalot. You have entered a debate you have not been a part of, in the first place.Now you came, started to talk some crap about completely different things that were discussed.. No one wanted you there.. Your thirty lines of Mr.Smart bullsh!t have completely ruined the original topic.. I personally find your presence extremely disturbing..
Anyway, let me put it quickly.. The topic was not about whether the F-35 can replace the F-4/F-5. Of course it can. I know that, BIO knows that, you know that. But we have been discussing something entirely else. Fine, now please, get lost.. Thanks.
Read above.. Read above..Posts: 2,120
By: thobbes - 25th September 2013 at 02:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure what all the angst is about.
It was always clear if budget was increased or required number of airframes reduced/made more flexible, F-35 would get first prize.
Militaries around the world are going as far as to gut their capabilities to get F-35s so why not South Korea?
And if you allowed F-35 to compete in Middle East (other than Israel), you'd be seeing them brought in droves by Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf states. Which means zero sales for Typhoon and Rafale in that region. Lucky for Dassault and Airbus that the Jewish lobby has such strong influence in Washington.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 25th September 2013 at 02:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 25th September 2013 at 02:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which naturally doesn't say anything at all about the capabilities the F-35 offers... all those forces have just lost their minds completely.
Posts: 2,120
By: thobbes - 25th September 2013 at 02:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now you're putting words in my mouth.
F-35 offers excellent capabilities as well as excellent potential economies of scale (if things go according to plan), excellent global wide logistics and of course is American.
All of these add up to an excellent recipe that the Europeans can't compete against.
Remember Rafale lost out to F-15s and F-16s in other competitions.
Only way Euros can compete is if it's an area where political sensitivities don't allow export of F-35.
Ruskis are far smarter and focus their marketing in this area.
You F-35 fanbois gotta stop being so defensive all the time.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 25th September 2013 at 03:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Last time i checked it was a F-35 thread not a ROKAF thread. Second, If you actually bothered reading the conversation I was having with Halow, you'd notice that We were talking about the genesis of the F-35 in general, i.e. I responded to his comment that it was "wrong birth" or whatever...
Just check the context in which i made the comment...
Now the ROKAF is not going to fight alone, integrating with the large F-35 fleet (USAF, USN etc) and the US network in general is and should be important to them.
I am afraid that you are only reading the VANITY fair article and not reading periodic updates on the helmet issues and the on going development of an alternate helmet as a hedge against delays in the primary one. The issues have been known for a long time now, the fixes have been developed and increment corrections are being incorporated and tested. Helmet is not a deal breaker...If at all its gonna push the Marines IOC back a few months, those wanting the F-35 in 2020+ I(as ROKAF) will hardly bother..
Flight domain is being openend. Eglen just got restrictions lifted so that they could expand the flight domain.
Data links are only one aspect a COMMON PICTURE is another..While a F-18 can be given MADL, it cannot do as much as a F-35 with it. The entire gensis behind MADL and future high speed data links is to link up crafts that have tremendous SA inherently built into them..that can be used fleet wide...20-30 F-35's flying around over a large air space (coalition crafts, ROKAF all combined) can beem out a very comprehensive ISR long distance picture that is SIMILAR (Compatible since all use the same sensors and DLs) and tactically useful
You just have to take time and search for solutions that are designed (and that will be incorporated very soon) that provide protection. They have been talked about publically by the Program Head...I am not sure whether the Vanity Fair article mentioned them.
Just started? Are you joking? 2(a) has been delivered, EOTS, EODAS and -81 can now be used fully integrated by the training jets at Eglin. 2(b) will be delivered in a few months..This is the version that the USMC IOC's with in 2015. The level of capability in terms of weapons and software integration that ROKAF will get will be more than they can ask for in 2020+ as all 3 versions of the jet would have been operational by then
You mean the arresting hook that ROKAF can't give a rat's A$$ about, or the one for which the solution has already been developed and sea trials scheduled for next year?
The JPO is not going to push forward sea trials just to shut up a Vanity Fair article..
2(B) USMC IOC 2015, USAF IOC with early block 3 capability 2016 and USN with 3(C) in 2018. 15 years from now we'd probably see a VC engine come aboard, and major activity in DEW's...
Those advocating for it, want its ability to silently go out and conduct surgical strike...Stealth here is more to bring an element of surprise rather than to defeat A2AD threat of NOKO.
Posts: 2,120
By: thobbes - 25th September 2013 at 03:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fair enough but I just can't see SoKo ever doing a preemptive strike on NoKo.
It's a great way of having 10s of thousands of artillery, rocket and missile rounds pepper cities around the DMZ including chunks of Seoul. And no amount of Western tech is going to stop that kind of brute force.
North Korea is far more willing to do beligerent acts than South Korea and any "surgical strike" would bring down a massive response from a regime scarred for it's own survival.
Not saying they shouldn't buy F-35s, just looking at political/military ramifications of any pre-emptive South Korean strike.
I think F-35 is ideal choice for South Korea. No doubt they will buy more when they figure out KFX will blow a massive hole in the budget for little capability.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 25th September 2013 at 04:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lets cool down . I only wanted to raise questions about at least surprising korea procurement process. And no bio, vanity fair isnt my source.
Posts: 2,120
By: thobbes - 25th September 2013 at 04:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I just want to know how they can just pull the extra billions out of their butts.
Surely that has ramifications somewhere.
Here in Oz even we were rich we couldn't just pull that kind of money out of our butts unless it was pork barrelling to minority seats in an election year. And the result of that is deficit budgets and diverting tax payer dollars to interest payments.
And then it was never funded properly anyway - Oz Commonwealth funding is a poison chalice. Tis why yours truly has a $1 million structural deficit on one $13 million dollar budget and had a $2 million structural deficit in another $12 million dollar unit (which thankfully got taken away from me when we went through our 4th restructure in 5 years).
And when you tell the big bosses (Departmental Secretaries and Ministers) "if you want me to come in on budget, either give me more money or let me cutback some services or even give me the legislative power to raise revenue," the big bosses just freak out and look away.
Western fiscal responsibility and democratic decision making at it's best.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 25th September 2013 at 04:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Then you must open yourself up to the entire program and its activities, not just concentrate on KNOWN issues with KNOWN (largely) fixes that are in the stage of development, integration and/or testing...
Here is something on very recent developments on the topic(s) mentioned by you..
The technical issues we’ve had are well understood and are being retired,” Martin said. “We are addressing and retiring risks on the program. We’ll continue to focus on them but we are putting them behind us.”
Both Bogdan and Martin said they were were confident the Marine Corps will have an operational aircraft on time, meaning sometime between August and December 2015. Martin insisted the service would have at least 12 fully operational aircraft by that date. The basing decision for the Air Force’s first JSF squadron is expected sometime in November, Martin said.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1276
F-35 team makes headway with helmet-mounted display
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-team-makes-headway-with-helmet-mounted-display-389953/
Lockheed promises tailhook fix to Navy’s F-35C
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/10/lockheed-promises-tailhook-fix-to-navys-f-35c/
Tail hook design would be thoroughly put to the test, next year DURING THE SCHEDULED sea trials for the Charlie variant.
Here's a discussion on the Vanity Fair article:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-24561.html
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 25th September 2013 at 04:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dude calm down and re-read my reply. It was to a general comment made by Halloween directed towards the F-35. It was not made in the ROKAF context at all.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 25th September 2013 at 05:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you mean south korea. well they have been building factories left and right in China. so cheap labor and huge market. very unreliable way of money.
I dont think they can afford 60 F-35 thats why they have to restart the competition and will buy the planes at much slower pace.
otherwise no need to put artificial price caps.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 25th September 2013 at 05:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You plan to field capability that give you options..You have your regular POUNDING BOMB truck fleets with the F-15K's and Vipers that do all the carpet bombing or take out whatever targets you may see fit. While the capability of discreetly targeting Noko is not available. With a nut in control of the NOKO, you could hardly blame the ROKAF for demanding such a capability in case the idiot ups his capability in the coming years/decades and decides to attack SOKO and place launchers on stand by tipped with nuclear warheads...To take those sort of targets out, you really need to go in quietly and bring in an element of surprise so that the idiot does not launch them in panic. The ROKAF have increasingly become aggressive when it comes to the North koreans and they are within their right to seek a comprehensive ability to neutralize nuclear or conventional threats originating from north korea (Be it bombing artillery or taking out nuclear missiles or surgical strikes on key nuclear establishments)..We can hardly predict what a maniac would do in a decade or 2..ROKAF wants to prepare for all eventualities...