Archive | Military RSS feed for this section

There Can Be Only One

19 Aug

Those naughty Europeans!

During the negotiations, EADS, the manufacturer of the Eurofighter, had agreed to several requests made by DAPA. DAPA had asked that 15 of the 60 total jets be two-seaters and that R&D work be done for weapons system integration so that the South Korean air force could use the fighter weapons it already has.

But the DAPA later discovered that EADS had subsequently made the arbitrary decision to decrease the number of two-seaters from 15 to 6 and had excluded the R&D cost from the final bidding price.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Uncertainties About F-35A Worry South Korea

17 Aug

S. Korea's $7.3B Fighter Contest Enters Final Phase

South Korea did the right thing, and eliminated Lockheed-Martin’s F-35A from its short list, to replace its aging fleet of F-15Ks.

The field of candidate models for the South Korean Air Force’s next fighter jet has been narrowed down to the Eurofighter Typhoon 3 and the F-15SE.

Defense Acquisition Program Administration spokesman Baek Yoon-hyung said on Aug. 16 that the bidders had come in below the total project budget of 8.3 trillion won (US$7.5 billion), with the next selection procedures now set to begin.

“The project is still ongoing, so I can’t say who the companies were,” Baek added.

But according to sources in the Ministry of National Defense and the companies in the bidding, the two companies were EADS, which makes the Eurofighter, and Boeing, which makes the F-15SE. Both reportedly made bids that were within the budget.

This means F-35A maker Lockheed Martin, which is subject to US regulations on foreign military sales (FMS), was unable to give a definite bid.

As a result, EADS and Boeing both emerged with candidate models, while the US government, selling on behalf of Lockheed Martin, effectively ruled itself out.

Continue reading

Cheap Continuity

5 Jun

Atari ASBThe United States Navy released its official line on AirSea Battle, which Robert Farley cautions should not be confused with AirLand Battle.

The political situation facing the modern USAF and USN is obviously different, and different enough that the implied connection between the two doctrines may obscure more than it illuminates. The objective of smoothing inter-service cooperation is obviously worthy, and AirLand Battle is worth remembering for the peace it represented between the Army and Air Force. Given the differences between the two concepts (one is a doctrine, one is not; one had an enemy in mind, one does not; one involved a lead and support service, one involves equal cooperation between two services, etc.), the confusion generated by the comparison may outweigh the rhetorical value of the (admittedly nifty) naming strategy.

Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: