South Korea abandons consideration of stealth fighter development

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT

Rufus 7/28/2009 2:13:42 AM

"No it is not. It merely quotes from the yet to be finished second civilian report that suggests alternatives, which will then be ignored."

lol...

If you say so kid.

I guess we will all have to wait and see whether this prediction proves to be more accurate than any of your others. (naturally it won't)

Quote Reply

SlowMan 7/28/2009 9:41:26 AM

@ Herald12345

> F-136 is that YF-120 kernel

but F136 is not F120; just like F119 derived F135 it increased bypass ratio to increase thrust at the expense of supercruise. Nor is F136 a finished engine; it is basically a cancelled engine in the middle of project. There will be no fighter that will be using F136.

@ Rufus

> If you say so.

Yes it is. That article basically quotes a few pages from an incomplete external technical feasibility study conducted by an external institute(Some university in this case) as required by law to offer a countering view to decision makers. It will not affect the Korean DoD's plan, which is determined to push through their plan and is already issuing some contracts with long lead time, namely radar and sensors.

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/28/2009 12:09:23 PM

"Yes it is. That article basically quotes a few pages from an incomplete external technical feasibility study conducted by an external institute(Some university in this case) as required by law to offer a countering view to decision makers. It will not affect the Korean DoD's plan, which is determined to push through their plan and is already issuing some contracts with long lead time, namely radar and sensors."

You are missing one key thing here. That article is credible, cites knowledgeable sources, and describes a plausible scenario.

You on the other hand, are a fanboy. You are not credible, you do not cite trustworthy sources, when you do cite sources at all you lie and pretend the source said something other than it did, and you insist a ridiculous scenario will come to pass.

Perhaps you are used to interacting with people who have a similarly low level of knowledge and experience and are thus used to being able to off your unfounded speculation and misunderstanding as fact. That isn't going to work here.

Quote Reply

SlowMan 7/28/2009 1:14:31 PM

@ Rufus

> describes a plausible scenario.

And exactly how are they supposed to carry Korean missiles on F-35? Korean navy destroyers carry two sets of VLS, MK-41 for carrying American missiles(SM-2) and K-VLS for carrying Korean missiles(anti-sub, anti-ship, and cruise), along with twin combat systems to control them. But this arrangement works in navy ships because ships are constructed at Korean shipyards and are big enough to carry both systems. There is no mean of carrying Korean weapons on a closed-system like F-35 and this is why F-35 was ruled out early on.

Anyhow, the report quoted in the article has already been analyzed to death, and ruled out as unfeasible because of the weapons compatibility problem.

Korean Airforce Plan

120 F-15Ks : American weapon
250 KFX : Korean weapon
60 F/A-50 : Subset of Korean weapon(some of them are too heavy to be carried by F/A-50)
------------------
430 combat aircrafts

Lockheed Martin Proposal to Korean DoD

60 F-15K : American weapon
100 ~ 150 F-35 : American weapon
160 ~ 210 F-50 : Korean weapon
60 F/A-50 : Subset of Korean weapon(Some of this volume can be turned into F-50 if Korean DoD gives into LM's demand)
------------------
430 combat aircrafts

Basically, Lockheed Martin's proposal is that they are going to lift the capability restriction contract on F/A-50 so that Korean DoD should develop it into a hypothetical Gripen-class fighter called F-50 and carry Korean weapons on those like they wanted 5 years ago and F-50 should be KFX, not some modified supercruising Super Hornet and Typhoon. But this screws up Korean DoD's plan of the airforce's ability to launch antiship missiles simultanously, as F-50's going to carry only half the number of heavy missiles per plane at any given time, and there are fewer of those. Korean DoD always counted on numerical superiority of air-launched anti-ship missiles against JMSDF's fleet to make up for surface fleet's numerical disadvantage in the event of war, but F-35+F-50 screws up that plan and now they are going to be at disadvantage against SDF even in air-launched antiship missiles, as F-2 could carry 4 antiship missiles per plane, plus Harpoons launched from F-15FX if that one's added to JASDF's inventory.

There is a lot more at stake than saving a few billions in development cost and having "a lower risk" plan here, basically the entire war strategy.

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/28/2009 2:08:15 PM

Wow, you do have a way of misunderstanding things don't you?

I honestly find myself wondering what goes on inside your head when you cook this stuff up.

First off, the F-35 has not be ruled out. That is just another of your lies and isn't a good way to start off a post.

Second off, it is possible to integrate foreign weapons onto a US aircraft provided the right arrangements are made. There are countless examples of this having been done.

Third off, where on earth did you dream up that supposed Lockheed proposal? Need I waste my time asking you for a source again?

Quote Reply

SlowMan 7/28/2009 2:30:31 PM

@ Rufus

> First off, the F-35 has not be ruled out.

Officially, no. Unofficially, Lockheed Martin burned too many bridges with Korean DoD to sell F-35 there.

> Second off, it is possible to integrate foreign weapons onto a US aircraft provided the right arrangements are made.

Tell that to Israelis and their neverending struggle to integrate Israeli system and weapon into F-35.

> There are countless examples of this having been done.

For prior US aircrafts like F-16, yes. For F-35, the whole avonics is off limit and Robert Gates is in Israel right now pressuring IAF officials to not integrate Israeli system or weapon and use F-35 as is, with already integrated weapons only. Now imagine what Robert Gates would say if Koreans say they want to integrate a dozen of their weapons into F-35. Japan too has similar number of their own weapons they would have to integrate into F-35 too. See, this is why F-35 doesn't make sense for countries like Japan and Korea with their own inventory of weapons.

> Third off, where on earth did you dream up that supposed Lockheed proposal?

At the same place that analyzed EADS vs Boeing vs LM vs Saab proposals. That's not mine, but what has actually been proposed by respective venders. LM and Saab proposals were crossed out first, and you have the bidding war going on between EADS and Boeing at the moment. The study you cite promote LM's proposal as the lowest risk and possibly the cheapest solution, but it's unacceptable to Korean DoD because it doesn't fit their war plan, much of which includes a naval war scenario with the world's second-most capable surface fleet on earth, JMSDF. Not to mention that Korean DoD is filled with LM fighter division haters(LM Maritime System actually has a good working relationship, but not the fighter division.) and these people have a seizure when they hear the name Lockheed Martin.

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/28/2009 4:36:58 PM

Let me just start out by saying that I am less than shocked that you haven't yet provided any of the requested sources to back up your stories.

"Officially, no. Unofficially, Lockheed Martin burned too many bridges with Korean DoD to sell F-35 there."

According to a fanboy on the internet. Noted. lol

"Tell that to Israelis and their neverending struggle to integrate Israeli system and weapon into F-35."

Their problem isn't integrating weapons, that is just something they throw out in the press in an attempt to confuse the issue. Israeli weapons will be integrated.

Their problem is that they want access to technology they weren't involved in developing so that they can try to muscle into the F-35 upgrade market when it emerges.

For prior US aircrafts like F-16, yes. For F-35, the whole avonics is off limit and Robert Gates is in Israel right now pressuring IAF officials to not integrate Israeli system or weapon and use F-35 as is, with already integrated weapons only.

Once again this is a case of you either lying or just not having a clue what you are talking about. Does it really matter which?

"Now imagine what Robert Gates would say if Koreans say they want to integrate a dozen of their weapons into F-35. Japan too has similar number of their own weapons they would have to integrate into F-35 too. See, this is why F-35 doesn't make sense for countries like Japan and Korea with their own inventory of weapons."

Yeah, imagine if this were actually a problem. Any idiot can make up lies you know...

At the same place that analyzed EADS vs Boeing vs LM vs Saab proposals. That's not mine, but what has actually been proposed by respective venders. LM and Saab proposals were crossed out first, and you have the bidding war going on between EADS and Boeing at the moment. The study you cite promote LM's proposal as the lowest risk and possibly the cheapest solution, but it's unacceptable to Korean DoD because it doesn't fit their war plan, much of which includes a naval war scenario with the world's second-most capable surface fleet on earth, JMSDF. Not to mention that Korean DoD is filled with LM fighter division haters(LM Maritime System actually has a good working relationship, but not the fighter division.) and these people have a seizure when they hear the name Lockheed Martin.

I am not even going to bother correcting this. As with the rest of your post this just crap.

Go find some sources kid. Your word has no weight.

Quote Reply

SlowMan 7/28/2009 4:54:13 PM

@ Rufus

> According to a fanboy on the internet.

What a clueless individual.

> Their problem isn't integrating weapons, that is just something they throw out in the press in an attempt to confuse the issue. Israeli weapons will be integrated.

Robert Gates say otherwise < link >

"Gates will push Israel to take the F-35 as is without any Israeli subsystems or access to core software," a diplomatic source familiar with the visit said. "Gates also wants Israel to promote JSF in Congress."

> Once again this is a case of you either lying or just not having a clue what you are talking about.

Once again < link >

> Yeah, imagine if this were actually a problem.

This is not a problem, but THE PROBLEM.

> I am not even going to bother correcting this.

Don't bother. It is free of error.

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/28/2009 5:09:58 PM

Where is Gates quoted as saying anything of the sort in that article kid?

Is your reading comprehension really so bad that you can't even make sense of what you are reading?

That would explain a lot I guess.

Quote Reply

SlowMan 7/28/2009 5:17:20 PM

@ Rufus

> Where is Gates quoted as saying anything of the sort in that article?

"Gates will push Israel to take the F-35 as is without any Israeli subsystems or access to core software,"

Give it up, you lost.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT