OzairDouble post
OzairThe Koreans, indeed, wanted to purchase additional F-15s as the F-35 option deemed too costly and risky.
I’m not sure the F-35 had anymore risk than the F-15 given the variant offered was the F-15SE, an aircraft which hadn’t flown yet. While the changes weren’t significant we have seen enough issues with development of small subfleets, including with the F-15SA and the delays that has experienced, to be wary of thinking this type of development is less risky.
It looks as if it has taken a lot of effort to re-structure the requirements and tailor fit them to the only possible option (F-35) and that effort has cost someone a lot of corrupt money.. This, of course, can’t be easily “proven” on the level of investigative journalism..
I don’t buy that. The group that campaigned for DAPA to spend more money included 15 former South Korean Air Force chiefs of staff. I am obviously not a conspiracy theorist as I don’t think LM could bribe all 15, although you could certainly argue it was lobbying not bribery…, and it not be made public.
We do have an interview with two of them that sheds some light on reasons for the reversal.
Q: Why did you and the other Chiefs of Staff of the Air Force decide to step forward on the FX program?
General Lee, Han-ho: We were reluctant to speak out. However, we observed how performance of the aircraft was disregarded and price became the only relevant issue for the FX program. I felt that this was a serious problem….
Q: Strategically, you believe that F-15SE is not the right choice, but rather stealth is required.
LHH: In consideration of the situations we have with North Korea and the surrounding regions, stealth is the only option. However, a competitive selection program was needed to promote lower price of the aircraft. We don’t have a problem with a competitive procurement program. We simply believe that all the relevant elements should be taken into consideration for the source selection, and are pointing out that price deciding the selection is a problem.
Q: The former Air Force Chiefs have all said that F-15SE is not the right choice. Why?
PCT: The core capability which was the goal of the FX next gen fighter was stealth. Stealth fighters are not caught on radar, and can strike enemy targets without being detected.
Q: And the F-15SE doesn’t have it (stealth capability)?
PCT: They say that it has limited stealth, but the aircraft doesn’t actually exist, so we can’t rely on such claims.
Q: What do you think we should do? Should we restart the whole program?
PCT: We need stealth. If we don’t have this capability, and with other countries getting stealth, we will not be able to protect our airspace. If we don’t have stealth our pilots will not be able to safely return to base from missions.
Q: One candidate platform is very expensive, while another platform we were not able to test by actually flying it. What should we do?
PCT: The insistence on KRW 8.3 trillion restricts our ability to make a choice. DAPA’s such insistence is not acceptable. We can’t simply keep doing these programs, because the budget is a lot of money. We need to make the right choice here. We need to have the stealth capability, either by reducing the quantity of aircraft, or adding more budget. We have to have stealth capability. I am deeply concerned about Korea’s security. Stealth is very important and necessary for this.
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/09/korea-dumps-boeing-f-15-for-stealth-f-35-pacific-sweep-likely/
The above is a selection with more available at the link. While their arguments favour the F-35 they are pretty clear and logical including for the sake of a few extra dollars the capability provided is significantly greater, that regional neighbours are developing stealth aircraft and Korea will need to match this capability and finally that improving surface to air requires stealth capability.
Especially the Israelis are a rather bad example as they seem quite reluctant to accept more F-35s and would rather prefer F-15s, instead, quoting range and payload as major factors..
You are not representing the entirety of the news reports. What Israel requested, as compensation for the Iranian deal, was more F-15s, while also requesting more F-35s, V-22s, KC-46s and bunker buster bombs.
An additional squadron of advanced Boeing F-15s has been revealed as one of the elements of a so-called “compensation package” requested by Israel in exchange for the US government backing a lifting of sanctions against Iran.
…
Other systems being requested by Israel in order to maintain its operational edge include Bell Boeing V-22 tiltrotors, Boeing KC-46A tankers, additional Lockheed Martin F-35s and bunker-busting bombs that have until now not been exported by the USA.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-requests-extra-squadron-of-f-15s-418487/
OzairWe fundamentally disagree here.. If I ever decide to devote my time looking for proofs for you, then it’s because I have chosen to do so, not because I have any obligations towards you as you are trying to imply..
Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to find the links for me. As for any obligation, I don’t claim it but I certainly maintain that making claims, without supporting it with evidence, is not right. The only way this forum will improve, and frankly it needs to, is when posters make a determined effort to back up claims with evidence or at least valid assessments.
I still struggle with your link to the F-35. The fact remains if the Koreans wanted to purchase the F-15 they would have, and had every reason to given it was already in their fleet and met the tender conditions. The South Koreans, as with the Japanese and Israelis, have recognized the unique capabilities that the F-35 will provide to their Air Forces.
OzairI already have.. Posted in late 2013, I think.. You should be able to find it using the search function on this forum..
This is getting quite comical… For starters, it would be nice if you pointed me to the right post and links given you already stated that you found the sources from 5 minutes of googling.
Now you could of course have been referring to 5 minutes of googling in 2013, by which I can only assume you mean this one,
Wishful thinking suits you fine. Here something to refresh your memory.. Not only formal criminal investigations but even fines and sentence.
Lockheed paid a $24.8 million fine for bribing an Egyptian official in return for a $79 million contract to provide three C-130 Hercules planes to Egypt. Lockheed Aeronautical’s director for Middle East and North African sales, Allen Love, pleaded guilty to paying and covering up the bribes and Suleiman Nassar, Lockheed’s regional vice president for Lockheed International, fled to Syria to avoid prosecution.
U.S. v. Allen R. Love
http://fcpa.shearman.com/?s=matter&mode=form&id=66
If so then you are going to have to do better than that. The only evidence you so far provided was a bribery case that occurred in 1988, 28 years ago…
As for any allegations associated with the F-16, I can’t find any but you claim there are some. Please provide them.
As for allegations against LM in Korea in general, the only thing I can find is an unusual article from 2009, that alleges the following,
VSE provided “support services” to the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
WMR has learned that VSE and Lockheed Martin’s Tokyo representative were involved in distributing $2 million in “black funds” to bribe South Korean diplomats and politicians who were involved in crafting an international arms tender from South Korea to purchase from the United States F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets fitted with Lockheed Martin’s Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) system. The competitors on the potential $7 billion contract with South Korea included companies representing the Eurofighter, as well as the Russians.The back room dealing primarily occurred in 2006 and the U.S. embassy in Seoul helped in arranging payments of untraceable cash for several South Korean politicians. The U.S. ambassador to South Korea at the time was Alexander Vershbow, who was nominated in March 2009 by President Obama as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security, a post in which Vershbow oversees foreign military sales.
So apparently LM bribed the Koreans to chose the F-15 so that they could sell them LANTIRN (incidentally at the time LM had the only two nav/tgt pods integrated onto the F-15E and Korea had already purchased one of them when they ordered their first round of F-15Ks in 2002)… What a croc…
Not only does it not make sense but the article identifies the then US ambassador to Korea, Alexander Vershbow, as a key figure in the deal. Alexander Vershbow is now currently serving as the Deputy Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Somehow I think bribery claims with even a hint of factual basis to them would have prevented him from undertaking such an important position.
So again, please provide some evidence, or even a credible news article or link, that backs up any of the claims you have made?
OzairMoot point for this thread though because procurement of Canadian jets won’t be put off until 2022, or at least we don’t have any information yet that would indicate that would be the case. All indications are that there will be a decision made by around this time next year.
Just to emphasis this, the Canadian Defence minister himself has stated that they will take a year to determine Canadian Defence Priorities. From that we can see there will be no decision this time next year. Even if that wasn’t the case, there is no way that the Canadians would be able to run an open and transparent competition that quickly, there is simply not enough time to define requirements, make these available and then receive submissions and Government make a decision.
OzairNope. Read the article before jumping to F35 conclusions.
I read the article, as well as four or five others that analysed the budget and its impact on the Canadian Military. None of them assessed this is great given the expected budgetary pressures Canada is likely to face in 2020-21.
The Trudeau government’s new fiscal plan shoves $3.7 billion in planned defence purchases — ships, planes and vehicles — off into the future, but Finance Minister Bill Morneau insists the move does not represent a cut to military funding.
Morneau said the Liberals need a year to figure out Canada’s defence priorities.The promised re-equipping of the Canadian military has essentially been postponed until after the next election by a federal Liberal budget that shifts billions of dollars in capital spending to 2020 — or later.
“In order to make sure we have the funds available at the time when they need those funds, we’ve reprofiled some in the fiscal framework,” he told a news conference prior to tabling the budget in the House of Commons.
“So, when we need the money, the money will be in the fiscal framework. So, we believe that is the appropriate action to take to ensure our military has the appropriate equipment, the planes and the ships they need.”
Justin Trudeau’s first budget offers no new money for big-ticket military items and instead shrinks funding by $3.72-billion over five years to account for major delays in plans to buy new fighter jets and ships.
The Liberals insist, however, they are not slashing defence spending and are instead merely shifting the cash to future years when Prime Minister Trudeau’s government is better prepared to purchase new warplanes and ship construction has accelerated.
“Everyone got a car here except the Department of Defence and the money it was supposed to get to buy a car has been shifted out to 2020 and beyond.”
Mr. Perry said pressure is increasing on the Liberal government to find a way to overhaul big-ticket military purchasing and funnel more money into it.
Conservative public safety critic Erin O’Toole said there’s fear in the military and the defence industry that the Liberals are not just postponing spending but that “a lot of these things are being cancelled and not just delayed.”
Losers: National Defence. Billions in planned equipment spending is pushed off past the next election.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/22/winners-and-losers-of-the-2016-federal-budget.html
Former navy officer and Dalhousie security analyst Ken Hansen said the reallocation doesn’t exactly instill confidence.
“Historically all governments, Conservative and Liberal, have reduced shipbuilding programs. They rarely delivered on target and have generally reduced in number. This kind of thing makes you wonder whether or not we’re headed down that path again.”
He also questioned whether the $3.7 billion will ever make it back into DND budgets.
Hansen said when funds are taken from defence capital, it’s just redirected into the government’s general revenue, with no real guarantee it will be used for military equipment 10 years down the road.
“The problem with that is, at a later date the priorities for money might be worse for the defence department than they are today, so we’ll have to take it on faith.”
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1351264-military-equipment-gets-no-extra-funding
What we do know is that the Liberal Government has pushed everything back a year with the Finance Minister himself stating they need a year to figure out Canadian Defence Priorities. Clearly that means any future fighter acquisition will be delayed by one year, give it another 2-3 years to run the competition and then another year to negotiate the final contract and we are looking at 5 years from now at the earliest. The RCAF won’t be able to spend any money until then anyway.
There is even a slim chance, post the next election, that the RCAF will resemble the RNZAF and operate no fighter jets once the F-18s retire. Would save the Libs some money…
Ozairhttp://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-designer-of-the-f-16-explains-why-the-f-35-is-such-1591828468
Why are you posting an article from 2014? For the record, because apparently people still don’t get it, Pierre Sprey had nothing to do with the design of the F-16.
OzairYes, I really think so.. Three of the dozen generals have been found to have a bribery record with LM from previous years (connected to F-16 and C-130 deals) after five minutes of googling. I personally don’t need any more proof..
It would help if you actually provided that information, the links etc? The absence of this, and your claims, has yet to prove anything.
OzairAs expected procurement moved to post 2022. they are even slow than India.
Well that formally announces that the SH has no chance. Eurofighter is almost certainly out as well given I can’t seen them maintaining production until 2022. It becomes a three horse race between F-35, Gripen NG and Rafale and on cost grounds a 2022 production decision is pretty much the lowest price point for F-35…
OzairKorea – lost to F-15. Whining around and bribing all officials in order to change requirements after a decision has been made and tailor fit them to the F-35 does not equal to winning, in my books.
Again, you have no evidence to support that claim, which frankly is absurd given recent history.
What we do know is that an SK General was arrested in 2009 over bribery claims with SAAB. Given that occurred only 5 years previous to the selection by Korea of the F-35, and instigated a wider review of the acquisition process and internal corruption, do you really think LM and a bunch of Korean Generals decided to collude to get the F-35 selected?
OzairThe Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which could not be classed as a friend of the F-35, was interviewed by the Australian Senate Committee hearing into the F-35 acquisition yesterday.
They had some insightful comments including the below.
As well, I have had good access to the F-35 program during my time at ASPI. I have had briefings from our own Department of Defence, Lockheed Martin and discussions at the Pentagon on the subject. Most of the discussions were at the unclassified level, but I had the opportunity to discuss the modelling and simulation work that underpins the concept of operations for the F-35 with the practitioners. My conversations with those involved in modelling work suggested that I was dealing with careful analysts who well understood the nature of their business. They could explain their assumptions and, critically, how they tested the sensitivity of their conclusions to variations of those assumptions and of input parameters. The results of that work—which should be available to the Committee should you choose to ask for a brief—is starkly at odds with some of the material in submissions you have received.
Which brings us to the nub of the question that anyone wanting to understand the F-35 inevitable comes up against—who is right? On one hand you have a very active group of critics who have managed to get traction with the media and with elements of governments in Australia and Canada at least. As the submissions show, their view is that this program is a fiasco of extraordinary magnitude. On the other hand, you have the acquisition organisations and air forces of some of the most professional and competent operators of combat aircraft in the world—I include in that list Australia, Canada, Japan, Israel, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. Those groups have access to classified data on the aircraft, and the partner nations also have good internal access to the program. Their collective judgement is that the F-35 is the way ahead for their air combat capability. (I think the Canadian Government will return to that conclusion unless money is their only driver.)
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/in-defence-of-the-f-35/
We often hear how flawed the simulations used by the JPO were but these comments gel with what sensible minds have understood for a number of years.
OzairNot sure if this has been posted before, but it was certainly news to me.
Not sure if it has been posted here or not but the rumours of this buy have been around for awhile. It is apparently one of the deals that is/was being held up by Congress.
The Kuwait Super Hornet order and a separate Boeing F-15 sale to Qatar have both stalled as the Obama administration negotiates a 10-year agreement with Israel on U.S. military aid.
U.S. defense officials, including Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, have raised concerns about the slow pace of arms sales approvals, and particularly the Kuwait F/A-18 sale, given the consequences for the industrial base.
Delays have prompted Qatar to halve its expected purchase of F-15s and pursue a separate deal with France’s Dassault Aviation (AVMD.PA) for 24 Rafale fighter jets, according to sources familiar with the matter.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-fighter-exclusive-idUSKCN0VL2JK
Assuming this would be for the F-15SA variant that Saudi have been developing with Boeing including FBW and additional wing hard points available for use.
OzairWhenever I see someone claim the F-35 is the only viable candidate, it immediately smells like bribe.. LM is sh!t-scared of competition, for obvious reasons..
You keep saying this but have no evidence to back it up.
No manufacturer wants a competition, it introduces uncertainty and likely reduces profit but going forward if any manufacturer wanted a competition it would be LM. They can make some very bold and justified predications on price, especially given the negotiations going on for a bulk buy of 450 jets. They have certainty on their platform having the lowest RCS, a comprehensive and defined upgrade path including a host of A2A and A2G weapons and will be able to promise overall fleet savings given in four year F-35s will outnumber the nearest competitor for airframes manufactured, the Typhoon, and four years after that all other western competitors combined. They finally have a list of blue chip clients who have experience operating high end aircraft to their potential…
As for it being the only viable candidate, can you name another airframe that is more suited for the RAAF than the F-35?
OzairAn interesting article appearing in The Hindu.
India has been up in arms, so to speak, over last month’s announcement that the U.S. proposed to sell eight F-16 combat aircraft to Pakistan.
Yet less than one week from that announcement, New Delhi got a hint that it might have a great opportunity to undercut Pakistan’s F-16 force posture – an offer from F-16 producer Lockheed Martin to add its prized fourth-generation fighter to the list of Make in India products.
Now discussions seem to be steaming forward between one of the U.S.’s top defence producers and the Government of India, with a statement to The Hindu from the office of Lockheed Martin’s India head Phil Shaw noting that they were “in discussions with the U.S. Government, the Government of India, and our Indian industry partners about potential new production F-16 aircraft to address India’s fighter recapitalisation requirements.”
While the company added that details about the aircraft and industrial offer would be determined in conjunction with the two governments in question, Lockheed Martin, and Indian industry, some within policy circles have not ruled out the possibility that the package could include “unprecedented” technology sharing or other favourable terms to woo the government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
A lot more at the link including a total production line move to India. Not sure it will go anywhere but the prospect of becoming a MRO facility to global F-16s has to be pretty enticing…
OzairI think the information that Ozair posted affirms what TooCool says is correct.
Only in that the JSF was required to fulfil an A2G role. The JSF was always going to be a multi-role aircraft unlike for instance the F-22 which had A2G tagged onto it towards the end of development.
The F-35 was designed to be a more robust platform in the strike role as the F-15 and F-16 were pushed overly hard in this role in both iraq wars. So I guess the many european countries joining in on the F-35 program seem to think multirole capabilities make for a more modern fighter than pure fighter capability. I would disagree on this but in modern warfare most people seem to think separate aircraft for the dedicated strike and fighter role is obsolete.
Obsolete and more costly and it is not just European air forces. It is widely recognised, not only by air forces but also by manufacturers, that a single aircraft can fulfil both roles.
Sign In
