Reply With QuoteStill no SAAB, so I guess that's it for them. IMHO, this is for the F-35 to lose. Korea has made no secret that they want a "your F-35 for my T-50 trainer" deal.
South Korea Announces Evaluation of F-X Fighter Bids to Begin Next Week
http://defense-update.com/20120706_s...next-week.htmlSouth Korea’s primary defense acquisition agency, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), announced that evaluations would begin next week to select the winning bid in the competition for a $7.3 billion contract for 60 advanced fighter aircraft. Previously submitted bids from three defense contractors were found to be lacking relevant details and were resubmitted, at South Korea’s request, on 5 July.
Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II, Boeing’s F-15SE Silent Eagle, and EADS’ Eurofighter Typhoon are all in competition for the multi-billion deal. The winning aircraft is intended as a replacement for the aging fighters now in South Korea’s inventory. In 2002, Seoul contracted to procure 60 Boeing F-15s as part of an extensive modernization effort and the present deal is a continuation of that program.
Still no SAAB, so I guess that's it for them. IMHO, this is for the F-35 to lose. Korea has made no secret that they want a "your F-35 for my T-50 trainer" deal.
Last edited by icefrog; 07-07-2012 at 07:42 AM.
T-X is delayed and public opinion during election year will factor in so don't discount the SEOriginally Posted by icefrog
We have a lot of dogfighters and interceptors (F-16V) and heavy strike aircraft (F-15K). What we are missing is a stealth penetrator.
That'd be a good deal for the US. The T-50 would be perfect.
I dont really see who'd have a problem here with that either.
It would deepen our commitment to each other hopefully. Make some bulwark against the occasional waves of anti-Americanism that wash in and out
F-15SE's wind-tunnel test with CWB and canted tail is completed, but Boeing doesn't want to test it on a real jet. How will we evaluate F-15SE's new capabilities by using the current production-model F-15K as a surrogate?
IceFrog, the primary reason why Saab has the slimest chance to win the tender, aside from the insufficient performance of Gripen, is the least potential opportunity for industrial offset. One of the previous agreements between the US and Korea for buying US jets is that the US will award Korea with multi-billion contracts for producing major US aircraft components, co-developing next-gen US weapon systems, and refurbishing USAF aircraft such as F-16, F-15, and A-10. As a result, the US today is largest Korean defense export destination. In comparative terms, it would become Korean firms who would have built 30-40% of newly built Gripens, maintained and modernized the existing ones in the Swedish air force, and help develop new Swedish defense technology. Basically, Sweden would be obliged to buy billions of foreign-made defense products, which means significantly reduced long-term profit for its relatively small defense industry even if Gripen export to Korea succeeds. Sweden has limited incentives to participate in the tender.
Ultimately it's the US who has the best financial capacity, readiness and political willingness for massive industrial offsets. It has a bigger military than any of the contenders, with greater demand for weapons and more room for outsourcing weapon supplies. Against some of the potential contenders, such as Russia, its defense industry is also less protectionist. Not only through the T-50 but also through other means will Korea enjoy more opportunities to make inroads into the US defense market, if a US jet is selected for FX-III.
Oh and, another important 'political' factor in the industrial relationship is the active advocacy within the US military command structure for strengthened cooperation with Korea for joint-defense R&D and acquisition programs in which US more and more takes rather than gives. In my observation, most European defense industries, with some exceptions like the British, do not hold Korean defense industrial capability in high regard (in this forum, there are already many Europeans, than Americans, who view Korea as little more than just slightly more advanced version of Chinese. It's telling). They want Korea to buy weapons, but they don't often buy something big in return. I believe the underlying cause is in more than just the Korean defense technology's limitations. There is a certain work culture mutual-respect factor at play when Korea chooses its industrial partners. Perhaps because the US and Korea do not often compete in the manufacturing sector, the US views Korea less as an economic threat (as compared to Germany, for example).
Last edited by Ambassador; 07-10-2012 at 01:51 AM.
Posting Permissions
