F-15 Silent Eagle looks likely to win South Korean fighter jet procurement

[Adar]

In a surprising move it looks like the F-15 Silent Eagle is likely to become the next generation fighter jet of the South Korean airforce.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...-way-raceSEOUL, Aug. 16 (Yonhap) -- In a last-ditch effort to win South Korea's fighter jet project, two of the three bidders -- Boeing and EADS -- offered proposals below the state budget of 8.3 trillion won (US$7.2 billion) during the final bidding on Friday, government officials and industry sources said.
The third company, Lockheed Martin, selling its F-35 stealth jets through the foreign military sales (FMS) program, offered a price higher than Seoul's budget, according to sources, effectively being eliminated from the race to win the country's largest arms procurement deal.
As the bidding process ended, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) will conduct a comprehensive assessment of the jets and officially announce the winner next month.
"As there were companies that offered price within the program budget, we will proceed to the next step," DAPA spokesman Baek Yoon-hyung said in a press briefing, without elaborating the names citing the ongoing procedure.
"Although all jets will be evaluated, aircraft exceeding the budget will not be qualified for the contract," Baek said.
This week's final rounds of biddings were held following a six-week suspension due to all previous sessions ending in a failure when all three aerospace giants offered prices above the 8.3 trillion won budget approved by parliament.
The bidding war illustrated the heightened competition among the world's biggest defense groups as they seek to overcome drastic cutbacks in military spending in the U.S. and Europe.

The deal is a month away from being finalized but it looks like both the F-35 and Eurofighter are disqualified due to a combination of high price (F-35) and lack of dual seat aircraft (both).

http://defense-update.com/20130819_b...for-korea.html
The South Korean defense acquisition program administration (DAPA) has indicated this week that the bidding process for the 8.3 trillion won (US$7.2 billion) program buying 60 new fighter aircraft has finally got to a conclusion. A single finalist, likely to be the Boeing Company remained in the race. With a single option now on the table offered at the right price, DAPA is expected to conduct further assessment and announce its final decision in mid-September. Boeing said it was still waiting to hear the outcome of the competition. Lockheed Martin also said it has not received an official notification from the Republic of Korea regarding the results of the price bidding for the F-X Program. Company officials said the decision is not determined on cost alone, and aircraft capabilities will also be considered in the month long evaluation process that will now proceed. “The F-X source selection process has multiple phases and we will continue to work closely with the U.S. government as they offer the F-35 to Korea,” Reuters quoted Lockheed Martin sources comment. The United States has proposed the fighter planes to Seoul under a government-to-government basis, through the ‘foreign military sales’ channel, with companies providing information on price and other details.
....

Earlier it was reported that the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) has been eliminated from the selection, after ‘abruptly changing its contractual terms’. EADS submitted an offer for 54 single seater and six twin-seat Eurofighter Tranche 3 fighters, while DAPA required 15 twin-seat and 45 single seat planes. South Korea’s decision to eliminate EADS and the fact that the costlier F-35A is available only in a single-seat version has left left Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle as the sole final candidate, government sources said Sunday.
Lockheed Martin was also one of three bidders, offering the F-35 which is available only in a single seat variant. In addition to the lack of twin-seat configuration, the F-35A was said to be costlier than the F-15SE or Typhoon Tranch 3. Throughout the bidding process Seoul insisted not to exceed its target cost, thus repeating bidding sessions 55 times.

The procurement really doesn't say anything about the quality of the aircraft as both the F-35 and Eurofighter are being disqualified due to costs and logistics. But I think it will be extremely interesting to see how the F-15SE will deliver.

In many ways I think it is a very intelligent development as it combines a tested design with what will hopefully translate into "sensible stealth" as it is stealthy enough to give it an edge against conventional designs but aerodynamic enough to save it when facing situations where conventional stealth won't help it.

[Condottiere 40K]

Makes sense, since they already have sixty modern F-15Ks, this batch would fit in better with logistics, training and whatever doctrine they have.

[Adar]

Makes sense, since they already have sixty modern F-15Ks, this batch would fit in better with logistics, training and whatever doctrine they have.

I also think it is a pretty good indicator that South Korea is worried about other nations than North Korea. The F-15 has supposedly focused on stealth in A2A engagements which suggest that it really isn't intended for deep interdiction missions over North Korea. But rather to ensure that other powers will be unable to strike at South Korean forces during a war or conflict over territorial waters.

I wonder if this will increase its chances in the international market in general.

It is very worrying news for both the Rafale and the Eurofighter as they are now looking to compete with a modern American jet fighter with twin engines and a focus on air to air combat. It apparently got a competitive price and it offers an interesting mix of American support, aerodynamics and limited stealth.

[Stavroforos]

It's definitely an interesting choice, because when the Silent Eagle was first announced I remember a lot of people writing it off as a plane which wouldn't have success. Realistically though, the F-15SE is a great choice for nations which simply don't have the need or budget for an F-35 while offering a very proven airframe. Naturally it makes sense that S. Korea is keeping with American technology and the F-15 specifically.

I wonder if this will increase its chances in the international market in general.

[Condottiere 40K]

The Eurofighter would have a better chance if it's domestic market was stronger, which means the French would have to give up their aviation autonomy.

[conon394]

Good result for the US as well in many ways. It opens up the chance to modernize the F-15 fleet without having to commit to all F-35 while still waiting to see if Lockheed can't get it's act together and deliver the wonder plane.

[Condottiere 40K]

[Pielstick]

I've been following this as well. A few points if I may:

i) As I understand this, the Eagle that SK is buying is not the same "Silent Eagle" that was touted a few years back. It will be a further development of the existing F-15K SLAM Eagle.

ii) It's the right choice for South Korea - they already have a number of F-15s in service, the US is heavily invested in the defence of SK and these new aircraft will integrate seamlessly into the existing defence infrastructure and the decision won't upset Washington DC as much as a Typhoon purchase would. Boeing has also promised to help South Korea develop its next generation of fighter (perhaps a revival of the F-32?).

iii) Many observers are surprised Typhoon got so far as it did, seeing as SK has no history of operating European aircraft and its historical ties to US manufacturers. Perhaps the inclusion of Typhoon was to keep Boeing and Lockheed honest. Despite this F-35 was disqualified because their bid was over budget.

iv) The actual reasoning behind the disqualification of Typhoon is rather dubious. DAPA wanted a bid for 45 single seaters and 15 twin seaters. Eurofighter provided a bid for 44 single seaters and 6 twin seaters. DAPA said their decision was based on Eurofighter submitting an incorrect bid. Strangely enough the F-15 is only offered in twin seat configuration and the F-35 in single seat. There's also reports Eurofighter wanted payment in Pounds Sterling which SK wasn't prepared to accept.

v) Politics aside the South Koreans have opted for an aircraft which will give them a proven A-G capability now rather than a kinematically superior aircraft that promises the A-G capability in the future.

vi) Don't expect this to translate into more F-15s or upgrades for the USAF. Right now the USAF is in a terrible mess due to sequestration - they are stuck with being forced to keep aircraft they want to retire, and being forced to ground aircraft they want to fly. The money has just been made available to get all the aircraft back flying again and the units operational, but the problem has just been kicked further down the road as there is still no long term plan to avoid this happening again in a few months. If the USAF doesn't have the money to fly the aircraft it already has, the massive F-35 programme is under huge scrutiny and pressure, there is simply no way anyone in power would countenance buying more F-15s. As much as some in the USAF would dearly love to see more F-15s it simply wouldn't be allowed because a procurement of more modernised Eagles would step on lots of Lockheed F-35 toes.

[conon394]

i) As I understand this, the Eagle that SK is buying is not the same "Silent Eagle" that was touted a few years back. It will be a further development of the existing F-15K SLAM Eagle.

Does not really matter from the US perspective since it helps keep operations going at Boeing and not leaving us with just Lockheed for fighters.

ii) It's the right choice for South Korea - they already have a number of F-15s in service, the US is heavily invested in the defence of SK and these new aircraft will integrate seamlessly into the existing defence infrastructure and the decision won't upset Washington DC as much as a Typhoon purchase would. Boeing has also promised to help South Korea develop its next generation of fighter (perhaps a revival of the F-32?).

From what I have read Boeing played a nice hand here in that Korean Aerospace was involved in the Stealth Eagle project from the inception.

vi) Don't expect this to translate into more F-15s or upgrades for the USAF. Right now the USAF is in a terrible mess due to sequestration - they are stuck with being forced to keep aircraft they want to retire, and being forced to ground aircraft they want to fly. The money has just been made available to get all the aircraft back flying again and the units operational, but the problem has just been kicked further down the road as there is still no long term plan to avoid this happening again in a few months. If the USAF doesn't have the money to fly the aircraft it already has, the massive F-35 programme is under huge scrutiny and pressure, there is simply no way anyone in power would countenance buying more F-15s. As much as some in the USAF would dearly love to see more F-15s it simply wouldn't be allowed because a procurement of more modernised Eagles would step on lots of Lockheed F-35 toes.

The Air force is a fine whine here. As always it wants to cut transport and A-10s but not its expensive wonder toy in the F-35. Yep let's reduce those C-130s because you know they do anything else like fight fires... I not as big a critic as some here, but the F-35 but it is Frankenstein platform and frankly I would like to see it and the LCS break the Pentagon of it one thing can do it all mentality that never works.

As much as some in the USAF would dearly love to see more F-15s it simply wouldn't be allowed because a procurement of more modernised Eagles would step on lots of Lockheed F-35 toes.

Which really is what the Pentagon should be doing. Right now Lockheed is getting a fairly nice ride for screwing up as completely as it has (not to mention its F-22 asphyxiation err Raptor). It really does need to have it toes stomped - or really it's balls. And that still leaves only 1 buyer and 2 sellers and that is not a good situation but beter than only 1. I Wub is right the US should buy the South African Gipens for the USMC(*) and put little scare into Lockheed for the cost of what 3 F-35s. Is Lockheed going to take its ball and go home? Its other customers all added up don't make viable sales pool for the F-35 (once they see their cost per unit skyrocket - even more so). Lockheed has screwed up and there is no reason it should just get to pass the cost on, make it eat the cost, and if it fails the US can buy it and action it off to new management.

The current situation is really just bad - to fanatically bad management by the Pentagon. The nation always eats overruns by a tiny handful of fat lazy key contractors who have no fear and nor worry.


* edit: Or the Air National Guard - but everthing SA and you have one squadron with spares and nice upgrade on tired - retired old F-16s and a nice warning shot to the domestic contract base on the cheap

[Pielstick]

Does not really matter from the US perspective since it helps keep operations going at Boeing and not leaving us with just Lockheed for fighters.

Don't forget Boeing has also got the Super Hornet which is still going strong. Then again Boeing can't keep relying on legacy MDD designs to ensure its future in the fighter business.

From what I have read Boeing played a nice hand here in that Korean Aerospace was involved in the Stealth Eagle project from the inception.

Boeing need someone to fund the Silent Eagle development because the Pentagon sure as hell won't Besides, Eurofighter offered quite a tasty industrial participation in their offer to South Korea and unfettered technology transfer and participation in future Typhoon development. I'm leaning heavily towards thinking Typhoon stayed in the competition for as long as it did to stop Boeing and Lockheed taking South Korea for a ride.

The Air force is a fine whine here. As always it wants to cut transport and A-10s but not its expensive wonder toy in the F-35. Yep let's reduce those C-130s because you know they do anything else like fight fires...

If you haven't already done so, have a read of Robert Dorr's regular commentary in this month's Combat Aircraft Monthly. He says although the number of aircraft in the USAF has dropped by a third since the turn of the century, the number of airbases has remained pretty much unchanged. He describes how the attempt to retire the C-130H and older A-10s and the maligned C-27 (all ANG units) was scuppered by congressional representatives from the various states who would lose the units. He believes parochial state level politics is exacerbating the wider national political dysfunction and preventing the USAF from making the consolidation it must to move forward. He asks whether or not there is really a need for the Air Force Reserve AND the Air National Guard, and whether or not it's really necessary to have an ANG flying unit in every state. He advocates consolidating aircraft and closing bases, and that doing so would save enough money that no further cuts in aircraft numbers would be necessary.


Still, the fact remains, a new USAF order for F-15s is extremely unlikely. It would create too many difficult questions for the F-35 and its backers.

[conon394]

If you haven't already done so, have a read of Robert Dorr's regular commentary in this month's Combat Aircraft Monthly. He says although the number of aircraft in the USAF has dropped by a third since the turn of the century, the number of airbases has remained pretty much unchanged. He describes how the attempt to retire the C-130H and older A-10s and the maligned C-27 (all ANG units) was scuppered by congressional representatives from the various states who would lose the units. He believes parochial state level politics is exacerbating the wider national political dysfunction and preventing the USAF from making the consolidation it must to move forward. He asks whether or not there is really a need for the Air Force Reserve AND the Air National Guard, and whether or not it's really necessary to have an ANG flying unit in every state. He advocates consolidating aircraft and closing bases, and that doing so would save enough money that no further cuts in aircraft numbers would be necessary.

I seen that kind of argument and his as well but it misses the point in my opinion.

"the number of airbases has remained pretty much unchanged. He describes how the attempt to retire the C-130H and older A-10s and the maligned C-27 (all ANG units) was scuppered by congressional representatives from the various states who would lose the units"

The question is when those C-130s get scraped and the ones in the Guard and Reserve are tied up with say 2 long wars which ones are around to do this ...

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2013/relea...wildfire.shtml

Again I not saying Congress does not create distortions, but at the same time it very very difficult to not feel that left to itself the Air Farce brass would not essentially build a wonder expensive fleet designed to fight WW3 with only uber fighters and bombers and completely forget things like transport, close air support and all kinds of secondary functions like say fire fighting.

Like I said I have seen Dorr's points but the problem is the AF has not. Yes they want to retire C-130s but but they have no apparent desire to replace that capacity. They just want to axe it to save the money pit of the F-35 which was a mistake at inception. If they would at lest admit that I would be a little mollified

Still, the fact remains, a new USAF order for F-15s is extremely unlikely. It would create too many difficult questions for the F-35 and its backers.

I agree.

But from a logical point the Pentagon should do it - even a small add on run to replace the oldest F-15 airframes. It may be a legacy 4.0 to 4.5 ish platform but Lockheed has gotten to fat and happy. Lockheed need a a warning and than a demand that it eat the cost of its own mistakes. Let's be honest the US could just deep six the F-35 and start over. We aren't fighting anyone with a 5'th gen fighters, and China and Russia are just in prototype now.

Overall my basic position is the Pentagon should just freeze the cost of the F-35 now and make Lockheed eat all current and future overruns. Their F-22 kills pilots and they have failed pretty much every possible goal post with the F-35, why are they being mollycoddled.

[Pielstick]

Overall my basic position is the Pentagon should just freeze the cost of the F-35 now and make Lockheed eat all current and future overruns. Their F-22 kills pilots and they have failed pretty much every possible goal post with the F-35, why are they being mollycoddled.

At the risk of staying off topic, I tend to agree. However, there are far too many careers and lobby $$$ tied up in the F-35 (and the F-22 in the recent past) for them to be allowed to fail. They're the aircraft the US is stuck with, whether they are the right ones or not.

I follow aviation more than other subjects, and see that both the USN and US Army aviation got their together pretty well, whereas the USAF has continued spending money like a kid in a sweet shop on superfluous programmes. Take a look at the number of aircraft types flown off of US carrier decks in Desert Storm, and compare that to now. They consolidated very well and saved a crap load of money and logistics/maintenance woes in doing so. Likewise US Army aviation ditched its vanity projects like the RAH-66 and stuck with modernising and upgrading existing airframes. However, the USAF still carried on operating five types of fast jet (including a myriad of different production standard F-16s), three types of transport, two types of tanker and three types of heavy bomber.


Back on topic.... I'm glad to see the F-15 will still be in production for a while yet. It's testament to how good the original design was that it can still be a world class fighter 40 years on.

[I WUB PUGS]

SAC was gutted under Clinton (rightly so) and that included many bases so I'm not sure how "the number of bases stayed the same", although it is true many were "transfered" to Guard and Reserve commands who barely staff them. Many many many Air Force bases have become joint bases and most of those reserve and guard bases are minimally staffed or partially manned by civilians that server a dual role. There are plenty of "Air National Guard" bases that are also civilian airports.

They aren't really draining monies away because they're minimalist. You can't cut the Army or Air Force Reserve or National Guard because of what happened after Vietnam under Abrams' guidance. The Reserve and Guard provide unique units that the US cannot go to war without anymore. This was done so good ole boys in Congress couldn't have their shirker sons like Dubya "serve" in these shill units. The US Air Force literally cannot deploy anywhere without the Guard or Reserve because those two provide huge numbers of planes and pilots for aerial refueling and airlift. The Army did the same with comm and logistics.

Do I think we should consolidate? Oh goodie yes. I love the military more than most and I'm all for a massive reduction and consolidation. Doesn't mean I think for a second that it will happen. The Air Force will protect its expensive toys the same way the Navy and Army do. They've found ways to cut elsewhere, and contrary to all the hype, the sequestration has not had some massive impact on the forces.

The Chair Force needs its nuts clipped and realists need to be put in command of acquisitions. The same could be said for all of the forces, but the Air Force is really bad about it. They had the audacity to use the B-2 to bomb Afghanistan to "prove its worth".


Meh, these discussions just piss me off too much. Its all politics. Money and politics. It doesn't matter what the actual capabilities of the forces are, just that they get new that creates jobs and that bases aren't totally closed so that the local economy still gets some money.

God, when Fort Ord was shut down under Clinton the entire 7th Infantry Division was stood down but they kept the base pseudo-open under the VA and the Guard. The local economy of the Monterey Peninsula was devastated already, no reason to keep it around other than to provide extremely low quality housing to married enlisted troops from the Presidio. Oh and the Army absolutely needed to keep its Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Courses firmly in their grasp. Should have sold all of the property and allowed Seaside and Marina to develop a proper economy instead of being stuck with miles of dunes with bunkers under them, and thousands of acres of un-exploded ordinance. Thank god CalState got land for their Monterey Bay campus.

So much unused land at Fort Ord. Just disgusting. Rows of old barracks falling down. Asbestos and lead paint galore. The whole place is just begging for a massive mall, ice rink, condos, dune buggy racing, you name it. But no, it will go largely unused and under some terrible care in some tiny corner of the Department of Defense.





Here I go ranting again. Lunch time.

[conon394]

you Conon. Lunch time.

Wow Its just my first day(or so) back from a long family visit and days of drive time so I hope I'm missing sarcasm.

I didn't think I was pissing in your cheerios on this one. I agree base closings are are handled badly mostly often, but at the same time I just said I don't trust Air Farce to pick its own options at the plane buffet, because I think they will load up at the F-35 bin and ignore everything else because its Cewl and maybe the next bomber too.

On a different note even though Lockheed has presided over the complete bloat of the F-35 it CEO has consistently been one of the most well paid executives in the US for years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ensation-2011/

How does that board meeting go...
"Under my leadership we are on track to deliver the F-35 our flagship defense contract late and massively over budget, we will all enjoy the benefits of bleeding the Air Force dry, see you at the links"

[I WUB PUGS]

Yes. Sarcasm.

[I WUB PUGS]

But what will we use for flyovers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvc2iASkWzs

[knight of meh]

stupid question when you name these things stuff like lightening II and Eagle why then do you all insist on using the silly F - ** format to address them

[I WUB PUGS]

Fighter

We've always designated our planes as such. Well since WWII. We used to use "P" which I believe stood for "Patrol". Edit: Looked it up, P stood for "Pursuit".

F-15SE is the actual name of the aircraft. The "Silent Eagle" is more of a nickname.

Edit: Before we get into some semantics about what things are named and why and how they've changed, I'd just like to say google has an answer and I have no interest in continuing down this road.

[conon394]

I always thought P was pursuit?
In any case thanks for the above reply I WUB, I like your style and posts but I am not always sure if I catch your wit

-----------

OT but since we are talking military, why are the Zumwalts called guided missile destroyers. They have fewer missiles than the ABs and 4 times as many guns and real ones at that.

[Adar]

iv) The actual reasoning behind the disqualification of Typhoon is rather dubious. DAPA wanted a bid for 45 single seaters and 15 twin seaters. Eurofighter provided a bid for 44 single seaters and 6 twin seaters. DAPA said their decision was based on Eurofighter submitting an incorrect bid. Strangely enough the F-15 is only offered in twin seat configuration and the F-35 in single seat. There's also reports Eurofighter wanted payment in Pounds Sterling which SK wasn't prepared to accept.

I think they were playing "nicely" in the sense that they did not wish to damage the Eurofighter consortium. When selecting the F-15 SE they could either focus on the benefits of the F-15 SE or they could focus on other factors preventing the sale. By coming up with these rather odd reasons they could select the F-15 SE without openly stating that the Eurofighter had a huge handicap against it as it wasn't a F-15 derivative.

I also checked it and everywhere I look people are describing the F-15 procurement in South Korea to be for the SE. I am not sure on how much the design has changed from previous drafts but it says silent eagle.

But I am also very curious on how silent it really is because it is a huge aircraft and the modifications to it aren't exactly huge except for the conformal weapon bays.

OT but since we are talking military, why are the Zumwalts called guided missile destroyers. They have fewer missiles than the ABs and 4 times as many guns and real ones at that.

Probably because other names would make them seem outdated. Military brass across the world tend to be very keen on getting attractive names on their projects.