Korean Fighter KF-X Development Schedule

[gf0012-aust]

Of course. Nobody has suggested otherwise. But that doesn't affect the question of clauses in LM's contract with S. Korea allowing it to veto the installation of some types of equipment on the T-50.

that would have to be a pretty dumb contract from the host nations perspective, and i have to say i've never seen one where the host abrogates veto to the vendor as its what we use to force the vendor to play nice. you never take boxfloggers at their word..

We're talking about a contract written some time ago, & if the press reports are true LM didn't get its way completely, since the Koreans refused to accept the radar LM was pushing (presumably with release to sell), & LM had to back off or face the clause being overthrown.

i would doubt that the vendor would ever get their way as countries always have national interest and sovereign privilege clauses. it smells like a selected retelling of an event. but, without seeing the details, i'm making an uneducated guess based on my own ecperience negotiating fms/itars releases

The Vixen 500E is British-developed & marketed as ITAR-free, BTW, & KAI was apparently keen to get it fitted. They put it on their stand at shows, alongside the T-50.

i knew that, i was focussed on the vendor veto rights being claused in and seeming to be a counter to the host exercising national interest privilege - that just does not make sense. i've seen too many systems where the engineers and uniforms testing solutions put a hole in the vendors claims to capability superiority - no project director in their right mind will be inserting contract clauses that diminish their right to seek better capability if the initial identified solution is causing capability, performance or integration grief with the rest of the supporting (and i mean whole of spectrum) systems

i have no doubt that LM tried it on (esp if it was the same exec if around the gripen/f-16 euro comp period). i have seen the same behaviour from the largest non US defence conglomerate in the world. - so much so that i know that various countries have denied them contracts as retribution for their commercial behaviour.

I have to say that I am more than surprised that if such a contract condition existed that it even got through the hosts legal team. alarm bells would be going off everywhere, and having dealt with the koreans on other combat system solutions, they play hard ball long and slow.

 

[swerve]

It was supposedly a limited veto right, not an absolute one, & backed up by US government restrictions on sharing T-50 source codes with non-US firms. LM couldn't dictate what radar was to be fitted, but could block anything better than that fitted to S. Korean F-16s, because of a competition clause. There were also suggestions of a work share agreement being involved.

Vixen was said to give capabilities that S. Korea's existing F-16 fleet lacked - hence the substitution of a mechanically scanned radar.

Of course, I only know what's been published, & don't know how accurate any of it is, but there have been S. Korean statements which confirmed there was a dispute over the radar, that LM was offering its own APG-67(v)4, & it was settled by the selection of the EL/M-2032, to be integrated in the USA.

There were also some suggestions that LM & Selex couldn't agree on LM integrating the Vixen. Each had conditions which were unacceptable to the other. Whether there's any substance to this, I have no idea, but it's pretty easy to fail to reach agreement if you think you (i.e. LM) will profit from not doing so.

Given the relationship between S. Korea & the USA, I expect that S. Korea would be very reluctant to invoke a sovereign privilege clause.

The Koreans needed foreign help with T-50, & may have been willing to make concessions to get it. The deal was made quite a long time ago, when they still seemed to assume that 'foreign' necessarily meant 'US' technical help.

Perhaps they feel able to negotiate harder with non-US suppliers than US firms with government backing.

Maybe they should have built a Koreanised MAKO. No problems with putting the Vixen on that.

Since the selection of EL/M-2032, Raytheon & NG have tried to muscle in with cut-down versions of the RACR & SABR, linking them to an upgrade of Korean F-16s. The F-16 upgrade is being negotiated over, so maybe the EL/M-2032 will end up being dropped.

 

[Ananda]

EADS Pledges Full Technology Transfer

From Korea Times : EADS pledges full technology transfer

MUNICH/MADRID ― Officials of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company N.V. (EADS), manufacturer of the Eurofighter Typhoon, say that the European aerospace consortium is willing to offer a full transfer of its advanced fighter jet development technology, including source codes, to Korea without pre-conditions.

They also assured that the company will allow Korea to export its own aircraft to be developed with the help of EADS even to the European market, where it has established itself as the largest regional aerospace and defense contractor.

“Our technology for Korea can definitely be used for other markets as we are willing to offer and discuss the matter with the Korean industry to follow that,” Peter Maute, senior vice president of Cassidian Air Systems, a division of EADS, told reporters on Oct. 10 following a tour of the final assembly line in Germany.

EADS is one of the contenders for Korea’s high-end military aircraft acquisition program with a budget of 8.29 trillion won ($7.26 billion) along with Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which have also shown interests in joining KF-X aimed at developing an indigenous F-16 class fighter over the next decade.

“We see benefits in combining the two programs. It is, however, not a condition,” Maute said. “We are absolutely interested in cooperating in all areas with Korea’s Ministry of Defense. We don’t make one depend on another.”

Well, they (EADS) don't make a condition to tied-up the support for KF-X with FX program. But they certainly want to show the Korean (or even the Junior Partner Indonesia), they willing to support all the way, purely on Business and no string attach.

 

[anan]

What would the life cycle cost of operating the T-50, AT-50 and FA-50 light fighter trainer aircraft be?

Assumptions:
--20 year live cycle
--20,000 hours flown over 20 years
--1 major upgrade before end of life
--decent electronics/sensors/radars
--good engine


For the AT-50, my estimate is $300 million over 20 years:
--$50 million initial procurement CAPEX (high end version)
--$40 million mid life upgrade
--$60 million in spare engine costs over 20 years
--$150 million for non engine spares, maintenance hours, fuels over 20 years ($7,500/hour * 20,000 hours)

$15 million per year.

Is this a good estimate?

Any thoughts on how to model this better would be appreciated. Also interested in estimates on the Indian Tejas, L-15 trainer.

 

[Ananda]

EADS Increase Their Campaign for KF-X

Well that's the way I read it from here : EADS welcomes Korea as partner

EADS officials at the biennial international aerospace exhibition acknowledged that their company, a consortium of four-European firms, has little chance of defeating the two U.S. defense giants in Korea due largely to political and other considerations.

However, they claimed that EADS wants Korea to be its new partner and realize its long-cherished dream of developing and exporting the world’s most affordable twin- engine combat aircraft.

“The Eurofighter consortium has the willpower to share the work with other partners. This is one very important thing that differentiates it from other competitors,” Berndt Wunsche, head of EADS’s combat air systems, said in an interview with The Korea Times.

Korea is hoping to develop a $55 million combat aircraft with limited stealth capabilities and a locally developed active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar system by 2020.

Wunsche noted that all four of the European partners have reached an agreement not only to share a significant portion of the work with Korea but also to transfer the necessary technology for its indigenous jet program.

The way I read this, EADS acknowledged that they have little chances to beat Boeing and Lockheed for F-X project, thus they seems now concentrating as Technological Partner for Korean KF-X program.

 

[anan]

Agreed Ananda. That is my reading as well.

Do you think South Korea/Indonesia (maybe Turkey as well) will go with EADS with respect to the KF-X?

One of the problems with EADS is that their technology appears to have higher life cycle costs for ownership relative to F-16 technology.

Is there any input yet on whether KAI is developing the FA 50 Golden Eagle?

Seoul places $600m order for 20 FA-50s

How does the FA 50 Golden Eagle compare to the HAL Tejas, JF-17, and other low end gen 4 fighter aircraft?

Well that's the way I read it from here : EADS welcomes Korea as partner



The way I read this, EADS acknowledged that they have little chances to beat Boeing and Lockheed for F-X project, thus they seems now concentrating as Technological Partner for Korean KF-X program.

 

[Ananda]

Agreed Ananda. That is my reading as well.

Do you think South Korea/Indonesia (maybe Turkey as well) will go with EADS with respect to the KF-X?

One of the problems with EADS is that their technology appears to have higher life cycle costs for ownership relative to F-16 technology.

Is there any input yet on whether KAI is developing the FA 50 Golden Eagle?

I Think we can forgot about Turkey at this time since Both Turkey and ROK still can not meet compromise on their respective position. ROK still want to be the lead Partner and what they looking is another Junior Partner besides Indonesia so they are looking for 60% (ROK): 20% (Indonesia): 20%(another partner). While Turkey has bigger ambition then Indonesia (well they have bigger potential usage and budget), thus they want 'equal' status with ROK so they are hoping for 40% (ROK): 40% (Turkey): 20% (Indonesia). Unless both ROK and Turkey will found some compromise, Turkey seems will go alone.

As for EADS, well why not, if the deal can be reached that considered beneficial for KF-X Partners. The KF-X team already considered GE F-414 and EJ-2000 as the lead candidate for the engine. From what I gather seems they're not quite happy with Snecma M-88. Some info suggest the offer considered too expensive, also some other source suggest the team considered Snecma M-88 need more development if too match GE F-414 or EJ-200 performance. Any way, unless some big alternate design come out, seems final design for KF-X still show a twin engine Fighter which need F-414, EJ-2000 or M-88 class.

For FA-50, I personally still in the dark with the future of this T-50 based light fighter project. ROKAF indeed put order for 20 FA-50, but this FA-50 seems differed from the original design for FA-50. This 20 FA-50 seems just another step-up from TA-50 just like TA-50 is another step-up from T-50. Same basic design, same class of engine, just different avionics and payload.

In short, I still do not know if the 'projected' FA-50 (as KAI initially hoped for) will ever be available in the future,since so far KAI is more incline just to developed their already existing T-50 line.