The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Arjen]

If the test points to be accomplished by years beyond 2012 are taken into consideration, test result percentages are better than I originally read.

B-model:
1,075 (baseline accomplished 2012)
992 (points from future years plans)
-------- +
2,087 (signifying 7 % more test points accomplished than the 1,939 planned for 2012 - approximately half, different ones than specified)
Additionally, 292 new test points recorded and accomplished.

A-model:
1,338 (baseline accomplished 2012)
431 (points from future years plans)
-------- +
1,769 (signifying 8 % less test points accomplished than the 1,923 planned for 2012 - in part, different ones than specified)
Additionally, 565 new test points recorded and accomplished.

C-model:
1,060 (baseline accomplished 2012)
896 (points from future years plans)
-------- +
1,956 (signifying 47 % more test points accomplished than the 1,327 planned for 2012 - approximately half, different ones than specified)
Additionally, 253 new test points recorded and accomplished.
All in all, for flight sciences alone, 1,110 new test points were recorded and accomplished. Apparently, all new test points were accomplished in the same year they were first recorded.
Of the 'old' test points, 5,289 were planned for 2012, 5,812 were accomplished, signifying 10 % more test points accomplished - but 2,319 of these were planned for testing later than 2012.

The mission systems test numbers are puzzling. Blocks 1 and 2 software list more Baseline test points accomplished than planned; for this to be possible, have points been added to Baseline during 2012? Block 2 lists 610 added points for 2012, suggesting major problems in development. Block 3 software lists *no* Cumulative SDD (Actual / Planned) whatsoever. The report does not show how many test points Block 3 software represents.

Testing of the unaccomplished test points is deferred to later years, presumably when test facilities and/or the aircraft themselves permit testing. If the aircraft is the limiting factor, it implies the aircraft is not delivering capability in time. If test facilities are the limiting factor, project management would seem to be at fault. The omission of test points for Block 3 software is strange, unless (part of the) functionality of Block 3 is yet to be determined.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

If the test points to be accomplished by years beyond 2012 are taken into consideration, test result percentages are better than I originally read.

B-model:
1,075 (baseline accomplished 2012)
992 (points from future years plans)
-------- +
2,087 (signifying 7 % more test points accomplished than the 1,939 planned for 2012 - approximately half, different ones than specified)
Additionally, 292 new test points recorded and accomplished.

A-model:
1,338 (baseline accomplished 2012)
431 (points from future years plans)
-------- +
1,769 (signifying 8 % less test points accomplished than the 1,923 planned for 2012 - in part, different ones than specified)
Additionally, 565 new test points recorded and accomplished.

C-model:
1,060 (baseline accomplished 2012)
896 (points from future years plans)
-------- +
1,956 (signifying 47 % more test points accomplished than the 1,327 planned for 2012 - approximately half, different ones than specified)
Additionally, 253 new test points recorded and accomplished.
All in all, for flight sciences alone, 1,110 new test points were recorded and accomplished. Apparently, all new test points were accomplished in the same year they were first recorded.
Of the 'old' test points, 5,289 were planned for 2012, 5,812 were accomplished, signifying 10 % more test points accomplished - but 2,319 of these were planned for testing later than 2012.

The mission systems test numbers are puzzling. Blocks 1 and 2 software list more Baseline test points accomplished than planned; for this to be possible, have points been added to Baseline during 2012? Block 2 lists 610 added points for 2012, suggesting major problems in development. Block 3 software lists *no* Cumulative SDD (Actual / Planned) whatsoever. The report does not show how many test points Block 3 software represents.

Testing of the unaccomplished test points is deferred to later years, presumably when test facilities and/or the aircraft themselves permit testing. If the aircraft is the limiting factor, it implies the aircraft is not delivering capability in time. If test facilities are the limiting factor, project management would seem to be at fault. The omission of test points for Block 3 software is strange, unless (part of the) functionality of Block 3 is yet to be determined.

Could some of these tens of thousands of tests (with more being added) and an extreme aversion to risk be a factor in long delays and additional expense? concurrency is taking a lot of hits publicly but isn't that the way they did it back in the "old days" before such a word existed? "get it in service now, we'll fix it later" Luckily they built in lots of safe guards to prevent such madness.

On another forum one of the Navy people was complaining about DoD insisting they go through crew ballistic safety tests on an unmanned aerial vehicle. :

Aviation can no longer keep ahead or apace of bureaucracy. It lost that race.

 

[chuck4]

Twenty+ years projects aren't necessarily a bad thing, if they regularly deliver *operational* stuff along the way.

Got an example?

Going back to Atlas (which was the biggest military project in history at the time), that program had to develop completely new materials and technology from scratch, invent new operational concepts/infrastructure, and deal with concurrency in the development of other systems outside the program; (starting to sound familiar?) and it did it all within 5 years of the decision to build.

I want to know what the hell changed.

The genuine fear of doom has passed, The sense of responsibility to the whole beyond its immediate impact to one's own wallet has diluted. All that's left are cliched slogans to fool the lowest and dumbest grunts. So here we are.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Twenty+ years projects aren't necessarily a bad thing, if they regularly deliver *operational* stuff along the way.

Got an example?

Going back to Atlas (which was the biggest military project in history at the time), that program had to develop completely new materials and technology from scratch, invent new operational concepts/infrastructure, and deal with concurrency in the development of other systems outside the program; (starting to sound familiar?) and it did it all within 5 years of the decision to build.

I want to know what the hell changed.

The genuine fear of doom has passed, The sense of responsibility to the whole beyond its immediate impact to one's own wallet has diluted. All that's left are cliched slogans to fool the lowest and dumbest grunts. So here we are.

Its people. Its very big nice democracies that have the money for national healthcare or national defense, but not both. Once that happens all political discussions revolve around either A. the other guy taking away from you, or B. The other guy not giving you as much. often both. People tend to only hear about the bad news when it comes to military projects, and without the knowledge to put it into context or a lack of basic knowledge (for example a F-18E/F can go to mach 1.8, or haul 17,000 pounds of weaponry and fuel on its external hard points-- but it will not do both) People will just take the it goes faster than the F-35 so the F-35 sucks!

It needs to be remembered that the "fear of doom" for defense contractors has a lot to do with very few of them being in business post cold war, and the few survivors are only around because of giant mergers. I think the only reason we have just two left, is because we can't possibly cut it to just one and keep "competition" going. Hell maybe someday it will be just one McBoeingDonnellGrumLockthorpMart.

The Government has not exactly opted for any "bail outs" or thrown its arm around defense the last twenty years. a Myriad of defense contractors have gone out of business and the government has basically said "ahhh, thats too bad..." and the factories close. Other times, as was the army tried to do with the Abrams plant in Lima, Ohio the military asks for something to be shut down (even temporarily) and it is denied by civilian Representatives.

We complain about lack of competition and innovation, but like a lot of things we sure aren't willing to spend to keep multiple companies going. Its a giant big complicated problem and what the JSF has done is essentially make the same bet with much higher stakes in the exact same game. Its getting noticed for its sheer scale and the fact that its the only game in town to report on, unless you want to do a story on Boeings latest mock up.

 

[GTX]

The mission systems test numbers are puzzling. Blocks 1 and 2 software list more Baseline test points accomplished than planned; for this to be possible, have points been added to Baseline during 2012? Block 2 lists 610 added points for 2012, suggesting major problems in development. Block 3 software lists *no* Cumulative SDD (Actual / Planned) whatsoever. The report does not show how many test points Block 3 software represents.

Welcome to the real world of complex programs and testing...plans change! Often this does not suggest major problems but rather simply changing requirements, refined/revised plans, and a multitude of other reasons all of which could be essentially independent of the product under test.

 

[Triton]

"Pentagon lowers F-35 performance bar"
by Dave Majumdar
January 14, 2013

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/

The US Department of Defense is lowering the performance bar for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter according to a new report by the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E).

The specifications for all three variants pertaining to transonic acceleration and sustained turn rates have been reduced. Worst hit in terms of acceleration is the US Navy's F-35C carrier-based model.

"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35C, reducing turn performance from 5.1 to 5.0 sustained g's and increasing the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least 43 seconds," reads the report prepared by J Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's DOT&E. "These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations."

The US Air Force F-35A's time has slipped by eight seconds while the US Marine Corps short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B's time has slipped by 16 seconds. However, turn rates for both the A and B models have been impacted more severely than the USN variant. Sustained turning performance for the F-35B is being reduced from 5G to 4.5G while the F-35A sinks from 5.3G to 4.6G according to the report.

All three variants are having problems with their horizontal tails. "Horizontal tail surfaces are experiencing higher than expected temperatures during sustained high‑speed / high‑altitude flight, resulting in delamination and scorching of the surface coatings and structure," the report reads. "All variants were restricted from operations outside of a reduced envelope until the test team added instrumentation to the tailbooms to monitor temperatures on the tail surfaces."

Meanwhile, the F-35B and C variants continue to have issues with transonic roll-off and buffeting. On the F-35B, the program introduced vehicle systems software to reduce rudder and flaperon hinge moment in the transonic/supersonic region. "The program expected to see improvements in transonic wing roll-off with these changes, but results were not available at the end of November 2012," the report reads.

Transonic buffet is more severe on the F-35C compared to the other variants due to its larger wing. "The program is making plans for investigating how to reduce the impact of transonic roll-off in the F-35C with the use of wing spoilers; however, detailed test plans are not complete," the report reads.

Meanwhile, the aircraft's crucial helmet-mounted display still has problems with jittery images and is not meeting specifications for night vision acuity. Additionally, a new problem called "green glow" has been discovered where light from the cockpit avionics displays leak into the helmet-mounted display and degrade visual acuity. However, the image latency is now within tolerances. "Latency of the projected imagery from the DAS [distributed aperture system] is currently down to 133 milliseconds, below the human factors derived maximum of 150 milliseconds, but still requires additional testing to verify adequacy," the report reads.

Perhaps in worst shape is the F-35's software. According to the report, even the initial Block 1 software package is not complete, some 20% remains to be delivered and flight tested. An initial version of the more advanced, but still not combat capable, Block 2A software was delivered four months late to flight test. "In eight subsequent versions released to flight test, only a limited portion of the full, planned Block 2A capability (less than 50 percent) became available and delivered to production," the report reads. "The program made virtually no progress in the development, integration, and laboratory testing of any software beyond 2B. Block 3i software, required for delivery of Lot 6 aircraft and hosted on an upgraded processor, has lagged in integration and laboratory testing."

Meanwhile, structural durability testing continues, but the F-35B has hit a snag. "The program halted testing in December 2012 after multiple cracks were found in a bulkhead flange on the underside of the fuselage during the 7,000-hour inspection," the report reads. "Root cause analysis, correlation to previous model predictions, and corrective action planning were ongoing at the time of this report."

Lockheed could not immediately offer a substantive comment. "Our experts are going through it so it will be a while before we have detailed questions like yours answered," the company says, but adds, "From an Operational Test and Evaluation perspective, we fully expect to deliver a qualified product to OT&E as scheduled."

 

[chuck4]

Is the reduction in performance specification temporary or permanent? Maybe an uprated F-135 engine would help?

 

[Arjen]

Is the reduction in performance specification temporary or permanent? Maybe an uprated F-135 engine would help?

That point was raised some days back by LO:

There is no sign that the relaxed requirements for g and acceleration (both are directly related to specific excess power in the combat regime) are permanent.

Transonic acceleration time has a large effect on the utility of the supersonic regime because fuel burn per mile tends to be greatest through the transonic drag hump. The longer you're there, the less time you have. IIRC the original threshold for 0.8-1.2 was 55-65 sec according to version, so +43 sec is a lot.

Unfortunately, I haven't found anything in the report on the proposed reductions being permanent or temporary.

 

[Arjen]

The mission systems test numbers are puzzling. Blocks 1 and 2 software list more Baseline test points accomplished than planned; for this to be possible, have points been added to Baseline during 2012? Block 2 lists 610 added points for 2012, suggesting major problems in development. Block 3 software lists *no* Cumulative SDD (Actual / Planned) whatsoever. The report does not show how many test points Block 3 software represents.

Welcome to the real world of complex programs and testing...plans change! Often this does not suggest major problems but rather simply changing requirements, refined/revised plans, and a multitude of other reasons all of which could be essentially independent of the product under test.

I appreciate your point, but I suspect any changes formulated during 2012 would be filed in the Added Points line of the test points table. We're talking about minor differences anyway when compared to the 610 points already filed in the Added Points for Block 2: 610 is actually more than the total 448 in Baseline Planned.

In turn, both these matters seem less significant than the entire omission of a test point total for Block 3 software, particularly as I would expect Block 3 to contain the most complex programming.

 

[2IDSGT]

Could some of these tens of thousands of tests (with more being added) and an extreme aversion to risk be a factor in long delays and additional expense? concurrency is taking a lot of hits publicly but isn't that the way they did it back in the "old days" before such a word existed? "get it in service now, we'll fix it later" Luckily they built in lots of safe guards to prevent such madness.

On another forum one of the Navy people was complaining about DoD insisting they go through crew ballistic safety tests on an unmanned aerial vehicle. :

Aviation can no longer keep ahead or apace of bureaucracy. It lost that race.

This example is loosely related to say the least, but it does offer some insight into how so-called "accountability" organizations actually operate. A friend of mine used to work in the MRE business (steak and mushrooms was always my favorite). The responsible agency had an office in the plant, yet they would still insist on conducting surprise inspections, entering the place like Moses descended from on high; but they didn't check any machinery or take any samples. All they wanted was to see the paperwork. The building could have been covered in flies and rat-shit, and they wouldn't have noticed; but God help you if a signature turned up missing.

 

[SlowMan]

Is the reduction in performance specification temporary or permanent?

Permanent.

Maybe an uprated F-135 engine would help?

F135 itself has been downgraded to 38,000 lbs AF thrust.

 

[GTX]

Is the reduction in performance specification temporary or permanent?

Permanent.

Maybe an uprated F-135 engine would help?

F135 itself has been downgraded to 38,000 lbs AF thrust.

More making things up I see. Why don't you at least try to be creative and interesting when you do so. This constant lying is boring.

 

[SlowMan]

More making things up I see. Why don't you at least try to be creative and interesting when you do so. This constant lying is boring.

You are like those people who found Galileo Galilei guilty of lying when he preached that the earth moved around the sun.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35b-stovl-variant.html

ropulsion*
(uninstalled thrust ratings)
F135-PW-600
38,000 lb Max.
26,000 lb Mil.
40,500 lb Vertical

 

[Dragon029]

More making things up I see. Why don't you at least try to be creative and interesting when you do so. This constant lying is boring.

You are like those people who found Galileo Galilei guilty of lying when he preached that the earth moved around the sun.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35b-stovl-variant.html

ropulsion*
(uninstalled thrust ratings)
F135-PW-600
38,000 lb Max.
26,000 lb Mil.
40,500 lb Vertical

Noting of course that that figure is exclusive to the F-35B; the A and C variants are still rated to 40,000lb.

I would also question whether the AB output of the F-35B ever was 40,000lb, seeing as it's always been disadvantaged with more rotating mass / friction in the engine system - as for quotes of "40,000lb" in the past, I would imagine that they were blanket statements applying to the other 2 aircraft, and B variant's 40,500lb output while in STOVL mode.

 

[Sferrin]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/08/27/01.xml&headline=Pratt

"WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Pratt & Whitney is upping the ante in the ongoing F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine war by revealing the F135 has achieved combat-rated thrust 20% higher than the specification. The disclosure raises the demonstrated sea-level thrust for the F135 above 50,000 lb., and follows results from the General Electric/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team earlier this month that indicate the F136 alternate engine has in excess of 15% margin against the same specification."

 

[SlowMan]

Noting of course that that figure is exclusive to the F-35B; the A and C variants are still rated to 40,000lb.

F-35A/C's dry thrust was downgraded to 25,000 lbs from 28,000 lbs, this is actually a more significant downgrade.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/08/27/01.xml&headline=Pratt

"WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Pratt & Whitney is upping the ante in the ongoing F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine war by revealing the F135 has achieved combat-rated thrust 20% higher than the specification. The disclosure raises the demonstrated sea-level thrust for the F135 above 50,000 lb., and follows results from the General Electric/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team earlier this month that indicate the F136 alternate engine has in excess of 15% margin against the same specification."

F-35A/C's dry thrust was downgraded to 25,000 lbs from 28,000 lbs, this is actually a more significant downgrade.

 

[Arjen]

From what I 've read, the proposed relaxation of requirements in sustained G and transonic acceleration has more to do with aerodynamics than with the engine delivering less than originally specified.

Some of this might be fixed by increasing thrust - probably at a higher fuel burn. Which is likely to cost money and range.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ts8Q6LwDMcs

From Naval Air Systems Command.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

A report saying sustained turning is being reduced is not very useful as a guide. Sustained turning of course varies with speed, altitude and weight. An F-16A at combat weight for example can only sustain 5G within a limited speed range and mostly only below 20,000ft, 7G only below 15,000ft, while above 35,000ft the performance is 3G or less which could make a turning fight with a bomber difficult. More thrust will improve sustained turning, all else being equal, but it wont help if the issue is a control problem. On the other hand a limitation caused by a control problem will not equally affect performance across the entire flight envelope. Its bound to be worse at certain points than others.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-seoul-weighs-options-in-f-x-iii-fighter-contest-381042/

FTFA:

As for the aircraft themselves, the F-35 and F-15SE - a low observable variant of the F-15E - are seen as the front-runners for the requirement. South Korean evaluation teams visited the USA in 2012 to evaluate the pair.

 

[SlowMan]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-seoul-weighs-options-in-f-x-iii-fighter-contest-381042/

FTFA:

As for the aircraft themselves, the F-35 and F-15SE - a low observable variant of the F-15E - are seen as the front-runners for the requirement. South Korean evaluation teams visited the USA in 2012 to evaluate the pair.

You missed this part.

Seoul still appears adamant about using the F-X III deal to gain technological know-how for its K-FX indigenous fighter programme. One source involved in the contest says DAPA's queries in recent months have been focused on technology transfer. Another source in Seoul says the issue of K-FX frequently comes up in meetings about the deal.

K-FX is apparently a sensitive topic with the companies and governments involved in F-X III. Aside from the extensive intellectual property, Seoul wants to develop the aircraft, which it sees as possible Lockheed F-16 replacement. However, some industry observers have questioned its development costs - and the fact that Indonesia is a 20% partner in the programme.

The degree to which K-FX considerations will weigh against purely operational matters in the F-X III decision is not clear. Nevertheless, all three rivals have publicly promoted their support for South Korean industry.

The winner will be decided on two factors.

1. Lowest price. The price became the deciding factor when the prices went over $7.9 billion budget.
2. Fattest tech transfer and offset benefits.

The jets themselves do not matter. This is why the F-35 is written off in Korea and is considered a non-contender, because the F-35 comes with the highest price tag of $14.1 billion and the least amount of tech transfer(21 out of 51 requested. Boeing and CASA agreed to 51 out of 51) and offset benefits.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

You should write the author and correct them.

The jets themselves do not matter.

Not what you said earlier:

KPMG was using an old obsolete data from 2011; the F-35 price has jumped since. The F-35 bids always costed more than the Typhoon in open bids contests; the F-35 costed $3 billion more(while having a fraction of the Typhoon's offset benefits in return), $4 billion more in Korea.

Therefore it is factually established that the F-35 costs more than the Typhoon, and the Typhoon costs more than Boeing products.

In that case why isn't the F-35 a distant third behind the Typhoon and Silent Eagle? I also seem to recall you citing more than simple cost as the reason Korea was looking outside the F-35, you have stated multiple times that the jets do matter, and if they don't I wonder why you brought up things like signature questions?

 

[SlowMan]

How the bid evaluation works

Upto $7.9 billion : Price is one of factors accounting for 30% of score.
$7.9~9.45 billion : Now operating in the cost overrun mode. Price becomes the decisive factor as the penalty for exceeding the budget increases exponentially as the bid prices drift away from the budget in the bid evaluation score calculation formula.
Above 9.45 billion : It is illegal to buy above this price ceiling. Any bidder above $9.45 billion is automatically disqualified.

At $14.1 billion, the F-35 purchase has become illegal under the Korean law, so it was written off among Korean press. The US press doesn't quite understand this and think the F-35 is still in the running.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

At $14.1 billion, the F-35 purchase has become illegal under the Korean law,

If its illegal, why is it still in competition? why would Lockheed continue submitting an illegal bid?

so it was written off among Korean press.

Is the press making the decisions? or the Government? Because it sure looks like the press wrote it off but the government is doing other things...

 

[Arjen]

If its illegal, why is it still in competition? why would Lockheed continue submitting an illegal bid?

Submitting the bid is legal. The government accepting the bid, without parliament changing the law, is not. I think Lockheed Martin is hoping for the law to change.

Is the press making the decisions? or the Government? Because it sure looks like the press wrote it off but the government is doing other things...

The press seems to be of the opinion that a change in the law is unlikely, and counts on the government upholding the law. This being the Korean press, it's possible they have local knowledge.

 

[SlowMan]

In that case why isn't the F-35 a distant third behind the Typhoon and Silent Eagle?

It is.

If its illegal, why is it still in competition?

Because of lawsuit fears. Whatever the decision the DAPA reaches, it must be able to withstand the court challenges. And there are dozen American and European law firms operating in Korea. At the end of tender, each bidding vendor will be briefed on how their bid performed next to their competitors and a copy of the evaluation result. The losing bidder can choose to challenge the decision in court if they found the result unfair. But the DAPA makes sure that won't happen, and this is why the lowest price bidders tend to win since it is hard to make a legal case against a bid that was cheaper than yours in an open-bid contest.

why would Lockheed continue submitting an illegal bid?

No bid is illegal. However, it is illegal for the DAPA to select the bid priced above the legal limit. Lockheed appears to be advised by bad advisors, and they must have had a false belief that they could close this deal based on a backroom political dealing like the Japanese F-X contest.

Is the press making the decisions? or the Government?

They have sources inside the government agencies. The agency themselves may choose to leak on purpose to pressure certain vendors, etc.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I wonder why Korea keeps putting off their decision, when the choice is so clear cut.

 

[2IDSGT]

I wonder why Korea keeps putting off their decision, when the choice is so clear cut.

Actually, the question is: Where did Korea get the idea that they could just show up at the last minute demanding full technology transfer, offsets, and delivery by 2017? That's like turning up on the first day of classes, registering for grad school, and then having the nerve to demand a teaching fellowship along with travel-grant money.

 

[SlowMan]

I wonder why Korea keeps putting off their decision, when the choice is so clear cut.

Drying to cut the last dollar out of the winning bidder's bill.

Actually, the question is: Where did Korea get the idea that they could just show up at the last minute demanding full technology transfer, offsets, and delivery by 2017? That's like turning up on the first day of classes, registering for grad school, and then having the nerve to demand a teaching fellowship along with travel-grant money.

The bidders had a full knowledge of the ROK government's demands; they were indicated in the Request For Proposal document. Both Boeing and CASA came up with impressive bids complying with most of the ROK government's demands but the price. Lockheed came back with an noncompetitive bid and hoped to close the deal with the US diplomatic pressures like it did in Japan.

Another news leak from Korea is that the DAPA officials almost had a heart attack when Lockheed told the Koreans $14.1 billion price tag at the negotiation table.

 

[GTX]

Both Boeing and CASA came up with impressive bids complying with most of the ROK government's demands but the price.

Hmmm...one might also read that as Boeing and the Europeans being more desperate for a sale just as Dassault were in India with the Rafale. :

 

[SlowMan]

Hmmm...one might also read that as Boeing and the Europeans being more desperate for a sale just as Dassault were in India with the Rafale. :

And the desperate bidder wins the bid...

 

[GTX]

Desperate isn't always a good thing - there have been many cases of the desperate making unrealistic claims during the bid process (especially on cost) only to have things change after they were in contract.

 

[chuck4]

I wonder why Korea keeps putting off their decision, when the choice is so clear cut.

Actually, the question is: Where did Korea get the idea that they could just show up at the last minute demanding full technology transfer, offsets, and delivery by 2017? That's like turning up on the first day of classes, registering for grad school, and then having the nerve to demand a teaching fellowship along with travel-grant money.

Korea is not the student, the US not the school or teacher. Korea is the customer, the LM is a shop keeper. What Korea can get out of the US depends whether Korea wants to buy American ware more than LM wants to sell its wares to Korea. Korea is putting off its decision for the simple reason the with every passing day, LM wants to sell its wares to Korea more. Korea is waiting to see if there will be a fire sale. It's simple as that.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Desperate isn't always a good thing - there have been many cases of the desperate making unrealistic claims during the bid process (especially on cost) only to have things change after they were in contract.

It has happened before. So then the customer either has to start anew or take the additional cost...

Korea is the customer, the LM is a shop keeper. What Korea can get out of the US depends whether Korea wants to buy American ware more than LM wants to sell its wares to Korea. Korea is putting off its decision for the simple reason the with every passing day, LM wants to sell its wares to Korea more. Korea is waiting to see if there will be a fire sale. It's simple as that.

I wonder if LM has left some "margin" so as you say, when it comes time to lower the cost, they can still afford to. the other bidders?

 

[chuck4]

I wonder if LM has left some "margin" so as you say, when it comes time to lower the cost, they can still afford to. the other bidders?

I strongly suspect there is, but it would be very politically incendiary for LM to use it to sell the plane to Korea at prices below what it is norminally charging the pentagon and other customers. It's the same scenario as in the case of the Swiss and their cheap Grippens. I am sure the Koreans know this as well as every other customer. But the Koreans are known to be very unsubtle about driving hard bargains and using strong arm tactics against foreign vendor's points of vulnerability. The negotiation between the Koreans and Israeli's over the potential sell of T-50 trainers was like a mafia browl. In the end the Koreans didn't get their way.

 

[SlowMan]

Desperate isn't always a good thing - there have been many cases of the desperate making unrealistic claims during the bid process (especially on cost) only to have things change after they were in contract.

Both CASA and Boeing are making firm fixed price offers, with damage provisions for failures to deliver.

The F-35 is offered on the FMS term, which means no price negotiation, no fixed prices, and in Korea's case, no quality guarantee because most of units are being delivered to Korea prior to the USAF IOC; the US government has no obligation to assure quality on units delivered before the IOC date.

Korea is not the student, the US not the school or teacher. Korea is the customer, the LM is a shop keeper. What Korea can get out of the US depends whether Korea wants to buy American ware more than LM wants to sell its wares to Korea.

Boeing is also "American" and the US state department can't officially protest a Boeing win.

Korea is putting off its decision for the simple reason the with every passing day, LM wants to sell its wares to Korea more.

Well, a line has been drawn on the sand at $9.45 billion and not a dime more. Has Boeing not only bid under this figure initially($9.4 billion), Boeing is now offering to sell the Silent Eagles at the F-15K prices. This is why local observers call FX III a done-deal.

Korea is waiting to see if there will be a fire sale. It's simple as that.

The F-35 won't be on sale. If Lockheed cuts prices, then it has to cut prices for all the JSF partners and eat the loss.

I wonder if LM has left some "margin" so as you say, when it comes time to lower the cost, they can still afford to. the other bidders?

The F-35 is offered on the FMS term, meaning that Lockheed doesn't deal directly with the DAPA. Rather, the JSF Office and the USAF act as an intermediary bidder, so that Lockheed -> USAF -> Korean government in sales.

The other two jets are offered on the DCS(Direct Commercial Sales) term with firm fixed prices, so that Boeing can bypass the US DoD and negotiate with the DAPA directly.

 

[SlowMan]

But the Koreans are known to be very unsubtle about driving hard bargains and using strong arm tactics against foreign vendor's points of vulnerability.

Those Korean officials are only trying to save their necks. Every purchase decision can be reviewed by the Parliament defense committee, which will 100% review the FX decision and the opposition party will use anything they see as improper as a political tool against the administration. It's exactly like the political firestorm going on in Canada, perhaps even more intensive.

The very kind of non-negotiated/politically-driven purchase decisions like Japan's FX is simply not possible in Korea, because the political opposition, press, and the 200K replies on portal sites won't let that happen.

 

[SlowMan]

nt double post.

 

[2IDSGT]

Korea is the customer, the LM is a shop keeper.

Let's try that one out for analogies. The Russians and Chinese are both developing their own 5th generation platforms. That makes LM the only shop-keeper with shovels... in a town where gold has just been struck. Not really a buyer's market wherein VLO technology is concerned.