Korean F-X Ph 3 Competition

[JFC Fuller]

If all the Korean's wanted was the F-35 they could have just written the requirements so that only the F-35 met them; it's easy to do as the Canadian's have demonstrated.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

If all the Korean's wanted was the F-35 they could have just written the requirements so that only the F-35 met them; it's easy to do as the Canadian's have demonstrated.

Who knows? Maybe they thought it was already understood? Maybe they didn't realize what the price cap would be? Maybe DAPA just did what it wanted? I don't know

 

[LowObservable]

JFC - There would have been nothing to stop them doing that, but even if there was an F-35-or-bust group within ROKAF, they clearly were not the only ones with a vote.

 

[GTX]

Interesting story: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/09/113_142651.html

 

[GTX]

More: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/koreas-ex-air-force-chiefs-100735069.html

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

If all the Korean's wanted was the F-35 they could have just written the requirements so that only the F-35 met them; it's easy to do as the Canadian's have demonstrated.

JFC - There would have been nothing to stop them doing that, but even if there was an F-35-or-bust group within ROKAF, they clearly were not the only ones with a vote.

Not quite nothing, it appears DAPA "stopped them from doing that":

However, the project alleviated the stealth technology condition twice in 2011 to induce price competition since there is no contender available if stealth technology is required operation condition. As a result, the competition formed amongst the F-15SE and the Eurofighter, which are 4th-generation fighters, and the F-35 5th-generation fighter with stealth technology.

http://www.sldinfo.com/facing-down-the-threats-of-the-second-nuclear-age-the-south-korean-air-chiefs-make-the-case-for-5th-generation-aircraft/

It appears the ROKAF tried to make it an F-35 only competition, but wasn't allowed to.

 

[JFC Fuller]

DAPA is the procurement authority, not the RoKAF. It is DAPA that makes the decisions, DAPA is the Korean's in this context and they do consider operational requirements.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

DAPA is the procurement authority, not the RoKAF. It is DAPA that makes the decisions, DAPA is the Korean's in this context and they do consider operational requirements.

Yes thats the point. I guess you were just asking a rhetorical question above there, since you knew the answer already apparently.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Turns out they have changed their mind; http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/24/us-korea-fighter-decision-idUSBRE98N07C20130924

Looks like the Korean's will eventually end up with the F-35. It will be interesting to see what they do with the budget and how long they wait before making another decision- obviously the longer they wait the more stable the F-35 price will be.

 

[F-14D]

Turns out they have changed their mind; http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/24/us-korea-fighter-decision-idUSBRE98N07C20130924

Looks like the Korean's will eventually end up with the F-35. It will be interesting to see what they do with the budget and how long they wait before making another decision- obviously the longer they wait the more stable the F-35 price will be.

Wonder how much negotiating strength they actually will have since clearly the fix is in.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

F-15SE is going to continue to be a what if

And it looks, moreover, as if Slowman (roundly abused here and elsewhere by the fans of non-F-15 products) was right all along.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJXYMDu6dpY


However it was a whirlwind 5 weeks where he might have looked correct on something for once. oh well.

 

[LowObservable]

Yes. Between Brazil, South Korea, India, Canada...seems that there is a competition going on who can have the most ridiculous Fighter Acquisition program. ;D

Looks like you were right!

 

[shivering]

Interesting.....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/24/us-korea-fighter-decision-idUSBRE98N07C20130924

 

[F-14D]

"Maybe ya don't unnerstann' da selection "process".

Leave us "explain".

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

"Maybe ya don't unnerstann' da selection "process".

Leave us "explain".

Now, now, on Monday many people thought Korea ran a great, fair, intelligent, competition that met the best value for the ROKAF... ;D

 

[F-14D]

"Maybe ya don't unnerstann' da selection "process".

Leave us "explain".

Now, now, on Monday many people thought Korea ran a great, fair, intelligent, competition that met the best value for the ROKAF... ;D

Please assure me you are saying this in a voice reeking with sarcasm

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

"Maybe ya don't unnerstann' da selection "process".

Leave us "explain".

Now, now, on Monday many people thought Korea ran a great, fair, intelligent, competition that met the best value for the ROKAF... ;D

Please assure me you are saying this in a voice reeking with sarcasm

oh it is.

Earlier in thread I said the competition had gone off the rails, however people who were fans of the F-15SE or even just not fans of the F-35 seemed to think that "justice had finally prevailed" . More than a few blogs and posters were celebrating "the F-35's first loss" and that crowd when they thought the SE had won did try to spin the competition as well run and fair. So it depended on who one was "rooting for" a lot of people were ready to gloat on Tuesday about the LM dark side finally losing

 

[Magoodotcom]

[quote author=F-14D] Wonder how much negotiating strength they actually will have since clearly the fix is in.
[/quote]

They'll have NO negotiating strength...it's an FMS case!

 

[LowObservable]

Negotiating strength depends on who else comes out to play in F-X Phase 3 V2.0. If the answer is "nobody" the ROKs have strapped themselves over a barrel. Brilliant plan, all the way through &c.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Negotiating strength depends on who else comes out to play in F-X Phase 3 V2.0. If the answer is "nobody" the ROKs have strapped themselves over a barrel. Brilliant plan, all the way through &c.

Well I don't think the last time they tried to "play hard to get" by flirting with Boeing and EADS worked out that great anyway, as this thread would indicate and that they threw out their own decision. The whole world can basically see the writing on the wall at this point

And that is your fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. There is no "partnership" there is a bidding process designed to extract the best possible deal. Contractors will continue to play the game because the prize is so big, especially for EADS and Boeing.

Besides as JFC Fuller pointed out, these guys are always up for a good screwing, and they will continue to play the game, amiright?

 

[Arjen]

Greg Waldron on Flightglobal: ANALYSIS: Seoul’s F-X III backdown raises thorny questions about competition

[...]
DAPA says it will review the F-X III campaign thoroughly before issuing a new request for proposal`, with the goal of choosing a winner within a year. The big question is whether Eurofighter and especially Boeing will be inclined to participate in a revised competition.

The air force could also step in and change the nature of the requirement, possibly reducing the number of aircraft, buying two different types of aircraft, or increasing the budget.

South Korean officials have said the decision to re-tender F-X III was made based on the threat posed by North Korea as well as the imminent arrival of stealth aircraft in neighbouring countries such as Japan, which in 2011 decided to buy 42 F-35s, and China, which is developing the Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31.

The first excuse is dubious given the ramshackle state of North Korea’s air force. The second excuse is less so in a region where status counts for a great deal. Irrespective of Seoul’s reasons for choosing to re-tender F-X III, it will have a hard time making it look like a genuine and fair competition.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The fact that EADS was bothering to bid in the first place just shows how desperate 4th gen fighter manufacturers are. The Korean's were always either going to choose the F-15 (fleet commonality) or the F-35 (because Japan did)- the Europeans never stood a chance, at least Dassault realised it.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The fact that EADS was bothering to bid in the first place just shows how desperate 4th gen fighter manufacturers are. The Korean's were always either going to choose the F-15 (fleet commonality) or the F-35 (because Japan did)- the Europeans never stood a chance, at least Dassault realised it.

Never stood a chance? That's weird in the post before this one you said that they would all bid even if there was only a one percent chance.

 

[Arjen]

Never stood a chance? That's weird in the post before this one you said that they would all bid even if there was only a one percent chance.

Having a chance to win a contract <-> thinking you have a chance - two different things.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Never stood a chance? That's weird in the post before this one you said that they would all bid even if there was only a one percent chance.

Having a chance to win a contract <-> thinking you have a chance - two different things.

Ahh sorry, good catch. so Thinking you have a 1 percent chance and actually having a chance are different things. How do the bidders tell the difference so they know which bids they shouldn't bother with and which bids they believe they have a 1 percent chance on and are worth entering I wonder? I wouldn't want them to waste their time not winning an order by not bidding, vs not winning an order by bidding.

 

[LowObservable]

It's misleading to say that "they threw out their own decision". The Korean government threw out DAPA's decision.

Nobody seems to be arguing that DAPA's decision was not in accordance with the ground rules and requirements that they had been given. (You may think that those rules and requirements were inappropriate, but that's another matter.) As a result it cannot be disputed that the Korean government as a whole made its decision to reverse on different grounds. I'll take "domestic politics" for 3 billion won, Alex.

We'll see whether anyone else competes. It's not just money and time - if the fix is in, why expose your product to a public trashing? Of course, there's always the Steinway Postulate...

 

[Arjen]

How do the bidders tell the difference so they know which bids they shouldn't bother with and which bids they believe they have a 1 percent chance on and are worth entering I wonder?

I would suggest evaluating a potential customer's past behaviour. Dassault and EADS had previous experience with the South Koreans. Dassault decided not to tender in the next F-X competition, EADS gave it another go. With hindsight, I'd say EADS misjudged its chances.

The problem is, of course, that decisions have to be made without the benefit of hindsight.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I would suggest evaluating a potential customer's past behaviour. Dassault and EADS had previous experience with the South Koreans. Dassault decided not to tender in the next F-X competition,

No that can't be, JFC said they always come back for more. You can always screw them and they return for more, because the prize is just too great.

EADS gave it another go. With hindsight, I'd say EADS misjudged its chances.

I see what you did there! classic british understatement humor in honor of the Typhoon. Thumbs up!

The problem is, of course, that decisions have to be made without the benefit of hindsight.

mind blown

 

[Arjen]

mind blown

There I was, trying not to. Sorry!

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Its business; there are very few customers out there with a requirement for 60 combat aircraft, and most of these companies are looking at the end of their production runs if they do not gain a new order soon (Dassault is in a slightly different position)- the choice is between trying to win a multi-billion dollar contract and not trying to win a multi-billion dollar contract when the consequences of not winning it could mean the end of your production line, guess which one the contractors usually choose?

Well as Bill pointed out, you can only lose so many times. So the idea that they will line up to be either screwed or have their product trashed if they don't bend over enough and promise the impossible (more on that in a second) constantly is actually plausible. How many losses is this for the Eurofighter now? Think they will bid again in Korea this next time?

Dassault "won" in India. They promised incredible things. When I say incredible I don't mean fantastic, I mean it in the other definition, as in not credible. Boeing was very happy to "lose" in India, because Dassault promised the world, and Boeing was smart enough not to try and do better. So Boeing avoided a fine screwing. Fast Forward to today and Dassault is still trying negotiate out of their big promises. Now of course that isn't what the headlines read, they don't say "Boeing refuses to impale itself to outdo stupid Dassault offer and loses" They just say "Rafale wins in India!" which is the kind of headline they hope to parlay into more aircraft with other countries in the future. 2 years into contract negotiations now...

So there is a limit to the screwing companies will take, and you may well scare off what might have been a better and/or more reliable fit.

As an example, Dassault was publicly trashed by an Abu Dhabi crown prince in 2011 for "uncompetitive and unworkable commercial terms"- Dassault is still pursuing the UAE contract. And see how long Dassault, SAAB and Boeing have been chasing the Brazilian requirement.

And you didn't see that as an obvious negotiating tactic as you lecture about business? Thats not a "trashing" certainly Not enough reason for the French to pack up their toys and leave. The Prince wants to pay less or get more in return. (shocking) Its not an insult, its certainly not a "you pay this, and suck it up" screwing. Moreover, Dassault may feel they are the verge of a deal, a company that feels they are not, might take that as their cue to drop out... Which is why, (And I'm sure Bill will agree with me on this) Each one of these competitions is different in its own way and trying to apply one to prove the other is not always equivalent. You are dealing with international politics, business, military and finally the aircraft themselves and the requirements and there are a helluva lot of moving parts. I can pick plenty of examples of companies not wanting to play despite the high stakes because of various reasons, just like you can find some companies that will try again despite long odds or insults. You can also find the "public" examples of deals and that doesn't always match the "Private" examples of negotiations-- the "You know what really happened was..." Lots of conspiracy theories down those roads.

we will wait and see if Boeing or EADs plays again in Korea. Especially as Arjen pointed out, Korea has to somehow convince them they have a chance again. Maybe Boeing will develop amnesia?

So in Summary (sorry I havn't slept in 20 hours) There is a limit to the amount of loses and bad deals a company can take. They want to sell and make money on airplanes, not donate airplanes. and when that looks like a real option the game is over. I guess a great test of that will be Korea 2.0 We will see who goes "once more into the breech", and who says "rather not waste our time again"

mind blown

There I was, trying not to. Sorry!

;D

 

[JFC Fuller]

Lockheed "focussed" on the Korean requirement: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/04/raytheon-patriot-idUKL1N0G323J20130804

The more export orders LM secures outside the original partner nations the sooner it kills off the 4/4.5 gen fighters.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Lockheed "focussed" on the Korean requirement: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/04/raytheon-patriot-idUKL1N0G323J20130804

The more export orders LM secures outside the original partner nations the sooner it kills off the 4/4.5 gen fighters.

Its been killing them in every competition already. There is no hurry.

 

[GTX]

Boeing Sees Possible Split Fighter Buy For Korea
By Amy Butler
Source: Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
October 11, 2013

Smarting from South Korea’s decision to sideline Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle and reopen bidding for a new fighter, the company is now lowering its expectations to capture some — but likely not all — of a forthcoming buy.
Boeing Defense, Space and Security President Dennis Muilenburg said the company is still investing in development of the Silent Eagle and remains in the game for Seoul’s yet-to-be-revamped F-X Phase 3 competition. The original requirement was to buy 60 new fighters to replace aging F-4s and F-5s beginning in 2017. Boeing designed the upgraded F-15 Silent Eagle specifically for South Korea and Israel, which effectively passed on the design when it selected the F-35.

Last month, Seoul set aside a recommendation from its Defense Acquisition Program Administration for the Silent Eagle, designed with conformal fuel tanks, a stealthy weapons bay, fly-by-wire and a digital electronic warfare system. Boeing’s offer was the only one found to be compliant with South Korea’s bidding rules and to stay within the 8.3 trillion won ($7.7 billion) budget. Eurofighter’s Typhoon was disqualified due to a bidding irregularity and Lockheed Martin’s F-35 bid exceeded the budget for 60 aircraft in the F-X Phase 3 competition.

Muilenburg says that South Korea, already an F-15 operator, might be interested in a mixed buy of the Silent Eagle and another competitor, most likely the F-35. “The acquisition that was just delayed was an acquisition for 60 aircraft at the same time … If you are looking at budget constraints, schedule constraints, desires for technology, perhaps a mixed buy or split buy of some sort” could be an option in Seoul, Muilenburg said during an Oct. 10 roundtable with Aviation Week in Washington. “They have some very tough schedule constraints.” With South Korea originally hoping to introduce the new fighter into service in 2016, skeptics questioned whether the F-35 could be ready in time.

Muilenburg argues that for an assured price, an upgraded F-15 can offer Seoul a much-needed capability quickly. “The terminology ‘fifth-generation fighter’ is a convenient marketing tool” for Lockheed Martin, he says, referring to the F-35. “A lot of discussion has gone into all-aspect stealth. I prefer to talk about all-aspect fighters that are not compromised for stealth.” Though the Silent Eagle lacks all-aspect stealth, it is optimized for frontal aspect stealth and features a far superior payload and speed over the F-35, Muilenburg says.

It is clear the F-35 has strong support in South Korea despite the higher cost and uncertainty over schedule pending the conclusion of flight testing in 2016; 15 former South Korean air force chiefs wrote an open letter supporting the selection of the F-35.

In a sense, Boeing’s strategy now in South Korea mirrors what it was in Australia, where the company convinced Canberra to buy additional F/A-18s while awaiting the F-35.
Underscoring the time pressure is a plan for South Korea to assume wartime operational control of forces on the peninsula as soon as December 2015. Washington and Seoul are expected to set a firm date for the transfer next year.

Meanwhile, Muilenburg says interest in upgrades for the F-15 — included those in the Silent Eagle package — remain of interest to international F-15 operators. Customers are able to purchase the upgrades — such as the digital electronic warfare system and radar — without the conformal weapon bay and other improvements aimed at stealthiness.

 

[Evil Flower]

Couldn't they have stuck with turning the CTOL variant of the F-32 into a viable design? That'd probably have sold better than offering souped-up F-15s and F-18s.

 

[SpudmanWP]

It would cost 10s of $Billions to design, develop, & test the F-32A. Boeing could not afford to do this on their own.

 

[F-14D]

It would cost 10s of $Billions to design, develop, & test the F-32A. Boeing could not afford to do this on their own.

Besides, since Gov't financed significant portion of X-32 development, Boeing would have to have gov't's permssion to proceed, even using their own money, which would not likely be forthcoming (e. g. F136). US Gov't has a vested interest in international sales of F-35, so that's where it's going to be throwing its not inconsiderable weight.

 

[GTX]

Desperation?

EADS Proposes Korea Buy Mix of Two Fighter Jets
(Source: The Korea Herald; published Dec. 11, 2013)

The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company proposed Wednesday that South Korea purchase a combination of 40 Eurofighter Typhoons and 20 F-35s for its next-generation fighter procurement project.

The defense firm argued that a split procurement will offer a better blend of capabilities for peninsular security conditions, and that its “stable” Eurofighter program can ensure an earlier fixed delivery timetable, starting from 2017.

The EADS’ proposal came after Seoul all but decided last month to purchase 40 F-35 radar-evading fighters manufactured by Lockheed Martin, a U.S. defense firm, and start deploying them from 2018.

“We see the advantages of a split procurement of Eurofighters and F-35s, combining the benefits of both programs,” said Peter Maute, senior vice president of Eurofighter sales, during a press conference in Seoul.

“This would be in line with the approach of some future F-35 users who will, once it is eventually in service, operate it complementary to other aircraft in a specialized role, using its stealth attributes.”

He particularly stressed the “multi-role” capabilities of the Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3 and the F-35’s specialized role for strike missions.

“The U.S. has developed the F-22 as a dominant air superiority fighter and plans (to use) the F-35 mainly for strike missions,” said Maute.

The United Kingdom and Italy, along with other nations, will begin using F-35s for specialized roles alongside the Eurofighter, which is of equal dominance to the F-22 in air-to-air contests and also has a full multi-role capability, he explained.

Maute also said that should Seoul opt to buy 40 Eurofighter Typhoons, his company would maintain its promises of technology transfer and industrial participation packages, which were made when Seoul planned to procure 60 warplanes.

The EADS’ industrial packages include technological support for Seoul’s so-called KF-X project to develop an indigenous warplane, and also an investment of up to $2 billion in the KF-X project.

Observers said it would be difficult for Seoul to reverse its current procurement plan and opt for the Eurofighter, considering that Seoul seeks to purchase all-aspect stealth aircraft to counter threats from North Korea and potentially from neighboring states.

Last month, Seoul decided to purchase 40 stealth warplanes for deployment from 2018-2021 and to later purchase an additional 20 warplanes, in consideration of shifts in the security environment and technological development. (ends)

EADS Pushes 40 Eurofighters for F-4s, -5s
(Source: Korea Times; published Dec. 11, 2013)

EADS offered fast delivery of 40 Eurofighters to the Air Force, Wednesday, which will allow it to retire its aging fleet, saying that Lockheed Martin could not match such a timeline.

The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) made the offer at a news conference held by senior officials in Seoul.

“A split-procurement would lead to a high level of flexibility by delivering fully operational capability in the near term together with all options to react on relevant future developments before selecting the remaining aircraft,” Peter Maute, senior vice president of Eurofighter sales at EADS Cassidian, said.

Maute’s proposal goes against a recent decision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS).

Last month, the JCS decided to first purchase 40 stealth fighters in the 60-plane F-X III program, but provided no specifications for the remaining 20. It is widely believed that JSC had F-35 joint strike fighters, in mind but Maute obviously did not want to wait until the Ministry of National Defense chooses the type of aircraft.

The split-buy concept comes as there are still concerns over possible late delivery of the still in development F-35, which may trigger a vacuum in air power.

The requirement program, aimed at replacing the Air Force’s aging fleet of F-4s and F-5s, was initially to import warplanes from 2016, but this has been delayed until 2018.

“Deliveries were set originally for 2016, although now in the recent JCS statement it is 2018 for the F-35, which we believe is still uncertain and therefore risks a vacuum in air power,” Maute said.

“Due to the stable phase of the Eurofighter program, we can ensure earlier fixed delivery dates, thereby satisfying the first criteria of the Korean Air Force.

“A split-procurement would allow Korea to take F-35 deliveries when it has reached the same phase without jeopardizing the overall time schedule for the introduction of the new aircraft fleet.”

In the third phase of the advanced fighter program, the Eurofighter was raved about for its industrial package as well as offset program, and Maute said that they still stand in the case of selling 40 Eurofighters.

The four-nation consortium ― Germany, Spain, Italy and Britain ― offered to set up a final assembly line in Korea and invest $2 billion (2.1 trillion won) into the nation’s indigenous fighter program.

“We would still be prepared to deliver the principles of our technology transfer and industrial participation,” he said.

“The Eurofighter Typhoon offer compromises a unique industrial package that will provide Korea and Korean industry with the indigenous capability to evolve the system exactly according to its needs and the opportunity to significantly enhance their industrial competences, skills and capabilities.”

He added that none of these benefits will be achievable with the F-35.

The Korean government has historically shown a strong bias toward American military equipment on the back of its 60-year-old Korean-U.S. alliance, but the German said that the split-buy will enable Korea to expand its interaction and exchange with some economically strong European nations while maintaining its important links with the United States.

“The four Prime Ministers of the four Eurofighter partner nations have stated their full commitment to support and to welcome Korea to the Eurofighter program as an equal partner,” Maute said.

-ends-