The F-16 sold in large numbers. So, I think it’s outstanding capabilities did have something to do with it……..

It also helped:

1. It was cheaper than F/A-18 or F-15 or M2000
2. It was more available than F-15 (see Egypt)
3. It was about the only Western aircraft available in that weight and price category through out a lot of it’s life span.
4. It allowed access to US maintenance, support etc. unlike say JAS-39.
5. Politics helped – e.g. Poland was apparently preferring JAS-39 but politics means US F-16 won.

F-16 is a great jet, but it’s success was certainly influenced by above factors.

Same thing with F/A-18 – Australia brought them because F-15 was too expensive.

Those fuel consumption rates were all I needed to support that F-35 might have greater range – I didn’t know where to find them.

Oh and it is speculation to a degree (I think all these JET X v JET Y things are speculation) – there are a lot of factors that are not published and probably never will be due to secrecy.

The generals clearly believe the F-35 is the superior aircraft by a substantial margin, but that the competition is structured in such a way that price has become the sole consideration.

We should consider whether South Korea had the budget for any more funding for new fighters..

The problem seems to be that the competition was structured poorly. Rather than being a comparison between multiple aircraft based on a range of considerations, the price ceiling was drawn just barely above Boeing’s bid, eliminating the two competitors with no consideration of the relative merits of the aircraft at all.

I think the big problem was not the price ceiling but rather the non-flexible aircraft quantity of 60 airframes.

Budgets are what they are. You can’t just pump more money into things if you don’t have the money (something defence enthusiasts don’t seem to understand. Most generals don’t understand this, and neither do hospital administators, public school principles etc etc).

Quantity of aircraft on the other hand is flexible.

They don’t want to see the entire contest re-run because that would set the process back years. They just want the price ceiling raised sufficiently to allow the aircraft to be compared on their merits. Price would remain a factor in the evaluation, but it wouldn’t be the sole determinant as in the current process.

Surely they would understand why the process is what it is?

It’d be interesting to see if any of the 15 generals were associated with old procurement system that resulted in corruption (which is why current process is so rigid).

To a politician with no background in assessing threats to national defense over the long term, its all about money. To those 15 Generals, the basic requirement for jets capable of dealing with North Korea and the PLAAF, not budget.

Once you start trashing your own fiscal accountability processes, you start destroying the foundations of good government.

The same applies to other principles.

E.g. Elminating right to freedom of speech and removing human rights also improves defence (at least in eyes of defence establishment):
– Eliminating freedom of speech removes criticism of government including criticism of defence related actions.

– Eliminating human rights allows defence to act as it wants regardless of civilian casualties and also allows greater access to monitoring it’s own population for dissenters as well as access to torture.

Generals as well as intelligence agencies seldom care for the above nicetiess unless they’re muzzled by laws.

Vietnam is a great example of this – the CIA was out of control to the point where it was coordinating bombing of Laos on a level previously unseen even in WWII. The US military became obsessed with kill counts at the expense of anything else and regardless of who they were killing.

Vietnam is also a great example of too much politician involvement as well.

Basically it’s about balance

And there’s a reason South Korea has these rules and why they are enforced rigidly. It’s because corruption existed in the past.

Look at impact of Indian defence procurement for how lack of accountability and transparency and related corruption can overall damage defence interests overall.

If they are retired generals, they don’t risk to face corruption accusations per se.

They might get accused of corruption, though in this instance there is no law violated. In this case Lockheed Martin (or Boeing or Eurofighter) simply paid a private citizen to speak for them.

But the principle of corruption remains the same – if payments are recieved then the statements are obviously not to be regarded.

They were followed up 5 times, what more do you want ?

Sample size is too small to make any definitive answers.

The problem with 2000-2013 is that we have no real data about how weapons perform under real combat conditions.

Compare this to period 1960-73 where the data was huge – lots of conventional wars with lots of jets. Even 1980-93 had some good experience that could be used to determine what works – Bekaa Valley, GW1, Angola, Falklands and Iran-Iraq.

Scooter are you taking into account fuel consumption?

SNECMA 88 (x 2) = 100 -150 Kn
F-135-PW-100/400 (x 1) = 125 Kn – 190Kn

F-35A weight: 13,300 – 31,800 kg
Rafale C weight: 9,500 kg – 24,500 kg

F-35A thrust to weight (100% fuel): 0.87
Rafale C thrust to weight (100% fuel: 0.988

So F-35:
1. Produces more thrust – hence greater fuel utilisation at lower weights.
2. Weighs more – hence greater fuel utilisation as you need to put more power into moving a heavier jet.

Even comparatives of thrust don’t really tell you the full story about fuel consumption. It could be that the F-35 set up is more or less or equal in efficiency in generating thrust as Rafale depending on things like aerodynamics.

I’m sure engine design also would have an impact – e.g. efficient burning of fuel, fuel management systems etc.

There’s also environmental conditions – e.g. some aircraft operate better in hot and high conditions than others. This would impact fuel usage on take off, which in turn impacts on range.

And then the obvious impact on types of weapons/mission loads being carried.

So any comparison is just speculation True performance is usually kept classified so we probably won’t know until both aircraft are out of service!