South Korean Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter IDonT
- Start date
navyreco
Senior Member
STX launched the 6th Incheon class Frigate (FFX Batch 1) ROKS Gwangju for ROK Navy
The sixth (Guided Missile Frigate), ROKS Gwangju, to protect South Korea territorial waters, was launched at a shipyard of STX Offshore & Shipbuilding in Changwon, Gyeongsangnam-do on August 11.
The sixth (Guided Missile Frigate), ROKS Gwangju, to protect South Korea territorial waters, was launched at a shipyard of STX Offshore & Shipbuilding in Changwon, Gyeongsangnam-do on August 11.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I wonder if some if not all of these additional costs BAE had to tack onto the contract were not "created" by the US government as a means of trying to sabotage the contract between SK and BAE to pave the way for the LockMart win.
The fact that the US government added nearly $500m to the BAE contract certainly raises eyebrows and suspicions.
I would not be surprised if it was made clear/apparent to the South Koreans that if they stayed with the BAE contract, the US would keep adding costs and/or other hurdles until the whole thing fell apart, or the US extracted the same profits as it would have done with the LockMart deal, thereby making it easier and cheaper for South Korea to just cancel the BAE contract (and eat whatever penalties that would cost them) and go with LockMart instead...
That also serves as a "gentle" warning to anyone else thinking about buying a non-US upgrade package for their US made weaponry.
Pure unfounded speculation wolf. Borders on pure conspiracy theory stuff IMHO.
It is much more possible that south Korea simply wants these things for their F-16s.
Razor.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
If the South Koreans wanted the LockMart package from the start, why first award the contract to BAE?
Also, why is the American Government adding on nearly a half a billion dollars of costs onto a British company's contract?
Occam's Razor indeed,
Equation
Lieutenant General
If the South Koreans wanted the LockMart package from the start, why first award the contract to BAE?
Also, why is the American Government adding on nearly a half a billion dollars of costs onto a British company's contract?
Occam's Razor indeed,
The British company more likely was sub-contracted under LockMart package. It's common in every industry, like in the architecture field. For example, lets say there was a competition for a public building project and a certain architecture firm won the design for the bid. They therefore are rewarded for that particular design, but they don't necessary have to do produce all the construction documents (blue prints) therefore they can submit that to another architecture and/or engineering firm to do that. They will be called the architect of record and therefore gets paid more because the requirement to do all the grunt work and number of people it takes to get it finish. Same concept with a high tech industry.
shen
Senior Member
"Nov 13/14: Legal. BAE sues in US court to block South Korea’s attempt to make BAE forfeit a $43.25 million Letter of Guarantee:
“That $43 million is a fee that was built into the F-16 contract in case BAE broke its agreement. But BAE is arguing DAPA is punishing the company for not being able to convince the US government that the extra costs created by government requirements for more testing were unnecessary. In BAE’s eyes, that simply isn’t fair.”
What’s remarkable here is the fact that the clear language of the lawsuit is saying that the US government basically destroyed the agreement between BAE and South Korea. That’s not exactly a common event, and must be seen as a major institutional and program failure. There seems to be no discussion occurring about that, in an environment where a major American company had a great deal to gain from any failure. Sources: Defense News, “BAE Sues South Korea Over F-16 Upgrade Cancellation Fees”."
Well, this is completely different than a conspiracy to punish South Korea...or BAE...for not doing what the US wants. This is simply free market business.
Some folks do not like that...and that's fine. It's how it works.
This is legal action based on South Korea wanting not to pay a $43 million Letter of Guarantee to BAE. My guess is, that if that Guarantee is clearly written into the contract...South Korea will end up having to pay if the judge rules that they violated the deal.
But South Korea has every right to use legal means to try and mitigate any losses.
And they probably feel there is more to gain by doing so.
This sentence:
Article said:
IMHO, makes it pretty clear what this is about.
This is how this business works. They (both sides) are trying to save money and thereby increase their margins. The could not agree on this point and so it is going to court.
That is not horribly unusual if the two sides cannot come to agreement, and if one or both sides feel that their legal costs in the end will be less than whatever is in conflict.. That's fine, it's how the free market works..
Last edited:
shen
Senior Member
not a conspiracy to punish SK or BAE, it is a conspiracy to help a private American firm win a contract at the expense of another private firm from an allied country and SK, another allied country. which the US government always accuse other countries of doing and saying that is unacceptable, yet is doing exact that in this case.