Korean F-X Ph 3 Competition

[bring_it_on]

Well, no one stopped Airbus from offering just 6 twins instead of 15, but that does not mean that DAPA would take this as a cost reduction and choose Airbus. It seems they really want twins, in which case, its just another reason not to go for the F-35 at this stage, in addition to it not meeting DAPA's cost limits.

 

[Arjen]

It seems they really want twins, in which case, its just another reason not to go for the F-35 at this stage, in addition to it not meeting DAPA's cost limits.

That would raise the question why the F-35 wasn't eliminated at an earlier stage.

 

[SpudmanWP]

LM offers a much better training plan that involved much better simulators.

Besides, the F-22 is only a single and nobody is complaining.

The problem is that the price cap was based on a certain number of planes, both single and double, and EADS decided to arbitrarily change the groundrules.

 

[LowObservable]

I would guess that the DAPA requirement allowed the contractors some latitude in whether to offer single seat, two seat or a mix, for both combat or training roles. And while nobody has complained about the F-22, the USAF has added T-38 companion trainers to the wings, for various reasons.


As for Magoodotcom's question - two factors under Boeing's control are profit margin and risk. The latter varies, too, as development of the SA version progresses. One might also observe that Boeing has 1500-plus orders for the $100m 737MAX, so risking a loss on Korea's F-15s, while not desirable, does not exactly pose some kind of existential threat to the company.

 

[sferrin]

I would guess that the DAPA requirement allowed the contractors some latitude in whether to offer single seat, two seat or a mix, for both combat or training roles. And while nobody has complained about the F-22, the USAF has added T-38 companion trainers to the wings, for various reasons.

Nobody has complained about the A-10 either.

 

[GTX]

Interesting thought...

Fighter Project In Limbo Government Needs to Reexamine Plan from Square One
(Source: Korea Times; published Aug. 20, 2013)

The nation’s next-generation fighter project is in limbo because the Eurofighter Typhoon touted by EADS, a European defense consortium, has been eliminated from the bid. This left Boeing of the United States as the sole bidder for the 8.3 trillion won procurement project. Boeing is proposing to sell 60 F-15 Silent Eagles to Seoul. Lockheed Martin’s F-35 had already been eliminated from the competition because its proposed price exceeded Seoul’s budget.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), the arms procurement agency, disqualified EADS on grounds that the European consortium’s proposal failed to meet South Korea’s key demands. Specifically, EADS arbitrarily cut the number of two-seater aircraft to six in its final bidding document after promising to supply 15 two-seaters to South Korea’s Air Force during the negotiation period, according to DAPA.

On Monday, EADS reacted angrily to DAPA’s decision, saying its proposal is best optimized for Seoul’s budget and efficient flight operations. Christian Scherer, chief sales officer of EADS Cassidian, said in a statement that there was no agreement between the two sides on the number of two-seater jets. "We do not see any promises made but only different scenarios with preferences which have been discussed respectfully by the parties all along the negotiation process,’’ he said.

For now, Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle appears to be in a favorable position to be chosen as the final bidder for the F-X project at a meeting of top military brass to be held in mid-September. Yet it remains to be seen whether Boeing, which won Seoul’s previous fighter jet contract, will be the winner again owing to deep-seated doubts about the American defense company and its aircraft.

Most problematic is that the F-15 SE, which is based on the F-15 developed first in the 1970s, is only on the drawing board without even a prototype in existence yet. Furthermore, the two-seat, two-engine F-15 SE has allegedly vulnerable radar-evading stealth features, a function the Air Force sees as one of the most important factors in selecting the next-generation fighter jet.

The Air Force says that South Korea needs jets with increased stealth features, given the necessity to counter North Korea’s nuclear threat. There is also a growing need to rival its neighboring countries to be armed with stealth aircraft in a few years ― Japan already signed a contract to buy Lockheed Martin’s F-35 that excels other aircraft when it comes to stealth features.

Boeing is also offering an unfavorable technology transfer deal to Seoul, apparently bound by the U.S. administration’s rigid control on aircraft technologies. In contrast, EADS has offered an attractive offset deal, including a bold transfer of key technologies. The European consortium, in particular, proposed assembling 53 planes in local factories to help boost the country’s aerospace industry.

DAPA is reportedly in a dilemma. At a time when it’s all but impossible to raise the budget for the fighter project due to looming fiscal constraints, Seoul may fail to attain its goal of reinforcing the Air Force significantly even at the expense of huge taxpayer money. Now is the time for the government to make a bold decision, including reexamining the fighter project from square one.

-ends-

Personally, I believe the underlying problem is Seoul's wanting to 'have their cake and eat it too' - i.e. insisting on a set of high end capabilities, insisting on 60 aircraft (in a certain mix too it appears) AND insisting on a price cap. out of these three, you can only have two! Something has to give.

I also still believe that Boeing's offer might have some interesting 'fine print' in it - the company does not simply accept the risk of a possible loss.

 

[F-14D]

I would guess that the DAPA requirement allowed the contractors some latitude in whether to offer single seat, two seat or a mix, for both combat or training roles. And while nobody has complained about the F-22, the USAF has added T-38 companion trainers to the wings, for various reasons.

Nobody has complained about the A-10 either.

Weeelll, there was supposed to be a two-seat F-22, which would have been beneficial both for training and because a two-seater has a number rf advantages both a/g and in a complex A2A environment, but it got cut for money.




When there was an attempt to make the A-10 capable of taking on Night and All Weather roles, they built an A-10 N/AW with two seats but decided to go a different route.

 

[GTX]

It doesn't matter what they want! The fact is that they can only have two of the three options: Quality, Quantity or Cost. This leads you to the following:


If Quality and Quantity...then be prepared to pay a lot!
If Quality and Cost...then be prepared to buy less then you would have preferred!
If Quantity and Cost...then be prepared to buy the second rate selection!



Failure to accept the reality of that is just proving how naive you are of the way the world really works in this regard.

 

[GTX]

Whatever...dream on in your fantasy world!

 

[Evil Flower]

Governments primary responsibility should be seeing to it that the taxpayers get the most bang for the least buck. Not functioning as some sort of welfare-program to prop up mega-corporations and the military-industrial complex.

 

[sferrin]

No, the naivety is all yours. Again, South Korea is the customer, it has not just a right but a responsibility to drive the hardest deal it can and that is precisely what it is doing. South Korea has no need to subsidise Boeing, EADS or LM and it is the one with the pot of money to spend. The South Korean's also know that in the case of both EADS and Boeing they will be keeping those companies lines open for a few more years and adding substantial sums the revenue of the divisions involved if they place an order of this size, thus they have the leverage to drive a hard deal- note that it was those two companies that made it under the price ceiling. And that is what proves your naivety, two out of three companies placed bids below a price ceiling that the South Koreans set.

Yeah, the customer can ask for whatever they want. Doesn't mean it's realistic or that it's possible for anybody to give it to them. Think if I went down to the Ferrari dealer, and asked for their latest model but was only willing to spend $10k, that I'd have any luck? Maybe Lamborghini would pony up though?

 

[JFC Fuller]

Yeah, the customer can ask for whatever they want. Doesn't mean it's realistic or that it's possible for anybody to give it to them. Think if I went down to the Ferrari dealer, and asked for their latest model but was only willing to spend $10k, that I'd have any luck? Maybe Lamborghini would pony up though?

Quite, but in the process you might find that Ferrari dealer would lower the sticker price. You would be dumb if you didn't try it. Anyway, we know the Koreans were being realistic as two of the bidders came in under their ceiling price.

 

[bring_it_on]

The accountants in any government deal always act in such a manner. Thats their job ! DAPA is only doing what is expected of them, being strict when it comes to cost, and trying to get the cheapest deal. It seems that the ROKAF still wants the F-35, but its DAPA that is putting the foot down and going in for the cheapest solution.

 

[sferrin]

Yeah, the customer can ask for whatever they want. Doesn't mean it's realistic or that it's possible for anybody to give it to them. Think if I went down to the Ferrari dealer, and asked for their latest model but was only willing to spend $10k, that I'd have any luck? Maybe Lamborghini would pony up though?

Quite, but in the process you might find that Ferrari dealer would lower the sticker price. You would be dumb if you didn't try it. Anyway, we know the Koreans were being realistic as two of the bidders came in under their ceiling price.

Pretty sure if I wanted one for $10k they'd be laughing as they booted me out the door.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The accountants in any government deal always act in such a manner. Thats their job ! DAPA is only doing what is expected of them, being strict when it comes to cost, and trying to get the cheapest deal.

Exactly, this is precisely what DAPA should be doing and South Korean taxpayers would justifiably be irritated if they didn't.

 

[LowObservable]

It does seem that DAPA has been authorized/directed to push for lower costs, fixed costs and low risks.


What would be interesting would be to see how the requirement was written. It doesn't seem to have resembled the Canadian requirement (which was framed in a way that eliminated all but one response); all three final bids were judged responsive.


That doesn't exclude the possibility that the government + DAPA wrote the requirement that way for industrial and political reasons. However, the AF does not seem to have had the power to change it into a Canada-type document, so it will be interesting to see what arguments they deploy in order to get it overruled.


Consider: When was the requirement finalized? What, at that time, was the projected P&A for the F-35? The AF may have thought "OK, let DAPA have their fun and run a competition - the JSF will win on cost and availability anyway." See "petard, hoist with own."

 

[GTX]

Yes, that's right, South Korea did not get two bids below its price ceiling, I just dreamt it all.

Did they? By the sounds of it, one of those bids (the EADS one) is not deemed eligible - no different to my offering you a car with only 3 wheels ... it doesn't really matter if the price is good, it is still useless!

Moreover, the fact that it took something like 60+ rounds to get this and then they only miraculously got under the price in what was reported as the last chance round. Hmmm...smells suspicious to me. Esspecially when one is then found to have fiddled the requirements to get there. As mentioned earlier, I also still believe that Boeing's offer might have some interesting 'fine print' in it in order to get under the price cap. This isn't simply a case of Boeing cutting their profit margin. In addition, the fact that the Silent Eagle may still have more development required only adds to the likelihood that this will cost more.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Consider: When was the requirement finalized? What, at that time, was the projected P&A for the F-35? The AF may have thought "OK, let DAPA have their fun and run a competition - the JSF will win on cost and availability anyway." See "petard, hoist with own."

and now look what they're stuck with.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Yes, that's right, South Korea did not get two bids below its price ceiling, I just dreamt it all.

Did they? By the sounds of it, one of those bids (the EADS one) is not deemed eligible - no different to my offering you a car with only 3 wheels ... it doesn't really matter if the price is good, it is still useless!

Moreover, the fact that it took something like 60+ rounds to get this and then they only miraculously got under the price in what was reported as the last chance round. Hmmm...smells suspicious to me. Esspecially when one is then found to have fiddled the requirements to get there. As mentioned earlier, I also still believe that Boeing's offer might have some interesting 'fine print' in it in order to get under the price cap. This isn't simply a case of Boeing cutting their profit margin. In addition, the fact that the Silent Eagle may still have more development required only adds to the likelihood that this will cost more.

Who cares how many rounds of bidding they ran? If it gets them a better deal then they have achieved their objective, EADS may have fiddled the requirements but now they know that won't wash and that Boeing is the favourite- they either have to put up or shut up.

This process is not about providing an easy ride for contractors, its about screwing contractors and extracting the best possible deal from them.

 

[LowObservable]

JFC - You're right in that the Koreans have another shot at a stealth aircraft. And I think what we have in the current situation is that the AF may have wanted stealth, but that MND was not prepared to write a blank check for it, while the Govt writ large was also concerned with reducing cost and industry wanted more time to get its own program going.


(Also, the RoKAF is getting its own precision, hard-target, survivable strike capability anyway. It's called Taurus.)

 

[GTX]

This process is not about providing an easy ride for contractors, its about screwing contractors and extracting the best possible deal from them.

And here I was thinking it was about acquiring a fighter capability and doing so in a partnership with the supplier... : ...how silly of me to forget that all contractors are evil money hungry scoundrels who should be hit at every turn.

If customers were to take the sort of attitude you show they will very quickly find that no-one is prepared to deal with them. It is simply not worth the pain and frustration. And if you think that is not the case, then maybe you should go ask Boeing what their internal reaction was to losing the Indian MMRCA contest...(how are Dassault going there?? )...or research what BAE Systems told the Australian Govt when asked if they would be proposing the Gripen for the RAAF back in the early days of AIR6000. B)

As it is, the Koreans should not be praised for exhibiting some sort of uber-negotiating skills here. Rather they should be embarrassed that this competition has turned into a debacle with the very likelihood that no-one will be satisfied with the end result. Moreover, until the acquisition contract is signed and the final delivery is made and all the costs are finalised, no-one will be able to tell if the process worked. Based upon years of experience, my gut feel is that a F-15 buy (if it goes ahead) will end up costing more than may have been promised, will take longer and may well leave the ROKAF wishing for more...regardless of what may be promised now.

 

[F-14D]

This process is not about providing an easy ride for contractors, its about screwing contractors and extracting the best possible deal from them.

And here I was thinking it was about acquiring a fighter capability and doing so in a partnership with the supplier... : ...how silly of me to forget that all contractors are evil money hungry scoundrels who should be hit at every turn.

If customers were to take the sort of attitude you show they will very quickly find that no-one is prepared to deal with them. It is simply not worth the pain and frustration.

As I opined once before: Can you say, "Brazil"?

 

[GTX]

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

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

(Also, the RoKAF is getting its own precision, hard-target, survivable strike capability anyway. It's called Taurus.)

why not just buy F-15Ks then?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

This process is not about providing an easy ride for contractors, its about screwing contractors and extracting the best possible deal from them.

Is that what its "about"? whew, glad EADs and LM dodged a bullet then. Boeing "won" a fine screwing. Enjoy it boys! "congrats"

That's a brilliant strategy for long term sustainment and future business BTW. more to the point, last I checked the F-15SE hadn't even flown in prototype form, And Korea hasn't taken possession of their 60 aircraft. So I wouldn't be celebrating the "screwing" just yet until we see the "score" at the end.

 

[sferrin]

This process is not about providing an easy ride for contractors, its about screwing contractors and extracting the best possible deal from them.

Is that what its "about"? whew, glad EADs and LM dodged a bullet then. Boeing "won" a fine screwing. Enjoy it boys! "congrats"

That's a brilliant strategy for long term sustainment and future business BTW. more to the point, last I checked the F-15SE hadn't even flown in prototype form, And Korea hasn't taken possession of their 60 aircraft. So I wouldn't be celebrating the "screwing" just yet until we see the "score" at the end.

True. If they go for F-15SE vaporware well, they should see how that worked out for Japan with their F-16 -hurrumph- I mean "F-2".

 

[SpudmanWP]

I have a better question.

Given the recent 10 fold increase in F-15K support costs, how can they trust Boeing on their numbers now?

 

[JFC Fuller]

And here I was thinking it was about acquiring a fighter capability and doing so in a partnership with the supplier... : ...how silly of me to forget that all contractors are evil money hungry scoundrels who should be hit at every turn.

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.

 

[GTX]

This is not like buying an off the shelf product at the local grocery store. There is always a partnership between Customer and Supplier in cases like this - if you think otherwise then you are even more niaive then I gave you credit for!! :

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This looks to me like the Korean management dynamic creating problems. Works well when results can be achieved by throwing labour hours at it like shipbuilding but fails dramatically when oversight and senior personnel accountability are required like airline safety. Somewhere in the Korean air force and procurement agencies a senior officer is demanding capability at an unprecedented cost and Korean BDMs of international aerospace companies are bending over backwards trying to make the two meet up. The only way they are going to do that in the end is to cut fundamental inputs from the capability offer (making it less capability to meet the cost) or replace components with lower labour cost components and bid the lowest possible integration cost to incorporate the cheaper component with corresponding cost blow out risks later down the line. They will also upset the vendor no end in the process which is a cost much harder to account.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

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.

If Boeing is selling the F-15SE to DAPA and then dusting its hands and they part ways then "no partnership" might work.

However, if Boeing is selling AND SUPPORTING the F-15SE to the ROKAF for use over the next couple decades, a partnership is what you need and it won't be DAPA that has to deal with the day to day of the F-15SE, as the aircraft require parts and logistics and even trouble shooting.

Its business, don't get me wrong, but happy business partnerships make life easier (and protect everyone's bottom line better)

An accountant can tell you the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I am extremely curious to see exactly what an F-15SE is. If it ends up being an upgraded F-15K with FBW and some CFWs, with everything else being "optional" if DAPA pays for it, it may not be as sweet a deal as it appears in which case Boeing may get the last laugh.

Its going to be interesting and time will tell.

Contractors will continue to play the game because the prize is so big, especially for EADS and Boeing.

They will? is that why only Boeing came under the cap, and even you feel they were screwed? looks like only one company played the game, and we don't really know what the details are. As noted above these might be F-15SE "lite" depending on whats in the fine print.

 

[JFC Fuller]

This is not like buying an off the shelf product at the local grocery store. There is always a partnership between Customer and Supplier in cases like this - if you think otherwise then you are even more niaive then I gave you credit for!! :

It is obviously infinitely more complex, but there is not a partnership and the same basic principles apply. The contractors are foreign firms whose primary responsibility is to their shareholders (most of whom are not Korean) and the customers primary responsibility is to its tax payers; hence the long negotiations. It is not South Korea's responsibility to give a US contractor a nice fat margin, it is South Korea's responsibility to its itself to make that margin as small as possible.

We know that contractors will continue to play the, Brazil has been dangling the possibility of a deal for over decade yet they continue to get new bids from all the major players. The same goes for the UAE where Dassault was told publicly and in no uncertain terms that their offer was not acceptable yet two years on Dassault is still pushing to sell the Rafale in country and to do so will probably have to improve their offer. And why? Because these deals add $ billions to company revenues and in many cases extend production lines and fund improvements that keep the product on the market.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

We know that contractors will continue to play the, Brazil has been dangling the possibility of a deal for over decade yet they continue to get new bids from all the major players. The same goes for the UAE where Dassault was told publicly and in no uncertain terms that their offer was not acceptable yet two years on Dassault is still pushing to sell the Rafale in country and to do so will probably have to improve their offer. And why? Because these deals add $ billions to company revenues and in many cases extend production lines and fund improvements that keep the product on the market.

Yes but like everyone there are margins. Its very funny that you seem to think that governments can be completely mercenary and ruthlessly go after the bottom line, and companies will somehow go into the red in order to placate them... apparently one side has a bottom line, and the other is interested in giving aircraft away at a loss in order to "play the game" because its better to sell products at a loss. I guess I need to reevaluate how capitalism works, apparently its been a charity this whole time. I wonder if shareholders (who Boeing primarily responsible to according to you) think of giving products away at a loss?

I also don't expect Brazil and the UAE to behave quite the way DAPA has on this. Again SK doesn't have the 60 aircraft aircraft in whatever configuration in their hot little hands just yet. And Boeing is not going to impale itself if costs rise. Playing hard ball is fun until the laws of economics cause people to stop playing, pack up their toys and leave, in which case no one gets anything. Which is damn near what happened here already, and I'm standing by to see what ends up happening over the next few years, because i bet this will become more and more interesting as time goes by. The units and price might be "firm" but the aircraft is "fluid" there aren't a bunch of F-15SEs to look at, we won't know what an F-15SE actually is. Boeing will either cut features to keep it affordable, or ask for more money, or deliver fewer units for the same cost. maybe all 3. In that case setting a hard cap and "screwing" Boeing to "play the game" may end up looking more foolish than working with the 3 competitors and seeing what you could get sans hard line price cap.

 

[F-14D]

These guys aren't going to for less than cost, unless they thought it would lead to something elsewhere where the back end would provide a big profit and cover what they didn't make here.

Otherwise, they'd be like a Used Car Dealer:

Yes friends, buy from us, we can't be beat. In fact, we lose money on every deal!. How do we stay in business? Volume"!

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Who said anything about a loss? Not me.

fair enough

EADS obviously took that latter approach to get under the Korean price cap, now the Koreans are questioning it.

questioning it? I thought DAPA DQed them and left Boeing by default?

In the mean time, no one has quit playing.

If you start setting prices that only one company will do, you are limiting options. so the only company that is playing is Boeing in this case. EADs also offered the best offset deal, but couldn't come in under the cap without altering the deal to cause a disqualification. LM bowed out.

I'm not sure they did "extract the best deal" You seem to be confusing that with setting an unrealistic price cap that excluded real competition and left only one suitor, with doubts about the capabilities that can be delivered. We will wait and see what gets compromised in order to make that hard cap. LM offered them an aircraft with huge potential, and EADS offered them great offsets. Now they have cornered themselves. They may have been able to pay a bit more and received much more in return, which is extracting the best deal, Even with Boeing.

especially since the goal of the whole program was to get an advanced type. In that case, they extracted the worst deal. And that's the problem with your "they still play the game" theory. Manufacturers will play it because they aren't concerned with what your military is looking for. If the compromise is capability and requirements, its no skin off Boeing or EADs or LM to sell you older or less capable versions at rock bottom prices, and you can spend the extra money bringing them up to the standards your military says they need or just living with what you got:

The only way they are going to do that in the end is to cut fundamental inputs from the capability offer (making it less capability to meet the cost) or replace components with lower labour cost components and bid the lowest possible integration cost to incorporate the cheaper component with corresponding cost blow out risks later down the line. They will also upset the vendor no end in the process which is a cost much harder to account.

By many accounts the ROKAF was angling for the F-35, and probably would not have minded the eurofighter at all (local manufacturing probably preferred it), instead they are getting more of what they had, and may (depending on what an F-15SE acutally is) be a bit disappointed. Hindsight being what it is, and considering what is left in the competition, LM probably could have offered an F-16V and won.

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20130820000865

http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=2976483

 

[JFC Fuller]

It is ultimately Korea's choice what it buys- if it judges that "older less capable versions at rock bottom prices" are adequate then it still wins. The Koreans will have set minimum performance requirements as well as a maximum price and they will extract, rightfully, the best combination they can. And as has been proven the contractors will keep coming back again and again.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

It is ultimately Korea's choice what it buys- if it judges that "older less capable versions at rock bottom prices" are adequate then it still wins. The Koreans will have set minimum performance requirements as well as a maximum price and they will extract, rightfully, the best combination they can. And as has been proven the contractors will keep coming back again and again.

contractor. Singular. and according to you they are getting screwed.

Seems DAPA and the ROKAF disagree on what is "adequate." We don't know if it is adequate in fact. But if we want to use this logic, then ultimately its the US, UK, Canada, Israel, Australia, Japan, Italy, Turkey, Netherlands, Norway and Singapore's choice to buy the F-35. It must be the best most logical choice, with the best deal extraction that meets requirements or else they wouldn't be buying it. Well that was easy. All is well that ends well.


Call me old fashioned, but you are already crowning DAPA and we don't have a single aircraft even at the prototype stage to see what all that is buying them, nor do we have any details of the official contract. Maybe Korea got a killer deal on some Snazzy F-15SE's with all the features and gizmos are more than adequate great, or maybe South Korea just severely overpaid for what may be FBW F-15Ks with some CWBs that will not be considered adequate in which case, oops.

I have no doubt Korea will get what they pay for, the question however is: is what they paid for enough? Again time will tell. And historically things start to go wrong after the contract is signed

 

[LowObservable]

Apparently the ROKAF signed off on a requirement that at least three aircraft could meet. (Unlike Canada for instance.) Was that their first preference or did other elements of government make them do it?


We don't know, but clearly several factors could have been involved: MND has to balance the air force versus other services and needs. DAPA is managing the money under pressure from the finance ministry. ADD and its industry friends want to do KFX.


Regardless, the outcome appears to be that the F-35, F-15 and Typhoon all met the requirement, and from the looks of things the rule was that there were no extra points awarded after that: it came down to a cost shoot-out. (Think about the two rounds in the US tanker contest.) But if ROKAF didn't want the F-15, why did it accept that requirement in the first place? (Did we hear of any complaints out of ROKAF earlier? Not that I know of.)


Again, why did ROKAF accept the requirement if it really wanted JSF? The answer is not that complicated.

 

[sferrin]

Again, why did ROKAF accept the requirement if it really wanted JSF? The answer is not that complicated.

Lemme guess. Because they secretly wanted the Typhoon right? :

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

That doesn't exclude the possibility that the government + DAPA wrote the requirement that way for industrial and political reasons. However, the AF does not seem to have had the power to change it into a Canada-type document, so it will be interesting to see what arguments they deploy in order to get it overruled.


Consider: When was the requirement finalized? What, at that time, was the projected P&A for the F-35? The AF may have thought "OK, let DAPA have their fun and run a competition - the JSF will win on cost and availability anyway." See "petard, hoist with own."

Again, why did ROKAF accept the requirement if it really wanted JSF? The answer is not that complicated.