South Korean Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jeff Head

General
Registered 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.
If it can be shown, in the least, that there is direct US government interference. in this matter...something that they changed to favor one side or the other...then you might have a point.

But I haven't seen that...or at least been made aware of it. From what I have read, I see pretty normal business operations when parties do not agree about practices and decisions that the other makes, and then file suit according to their view of the terms and conditions of their contracts to avoid cost, or recoup costs in this case.

There is nothing abnormal about that.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
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.

Umm, it has never suggested that this was done just to punish SK or BAE, the main goal, as Shen already clarified, was to sabotage the deal between SK and BAE, knowing a major US arms manufacture would be the only other party able to come in and pick up the contract afterwards.

If that is indeed what has happened, than that is, most certainly without a doubt NOT how the business are supposed to work.

It might be how things actually work, but that is a very different thing.

This sentence:



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..

Well Jeff, looks like we have a very different interpretation of what that quote means.

I read that as BAE saying they are not in breach of contract, because it was the US government who was in effect manufacturing all the additional, out of scope costs (the reason for which SK cancelled the contract) by making BAE carry out expensive, and in BAE's expert opinion, unnecessary tests.

As such, BAE are feeling rather aggrieved at both loosing the contract through outside interference, and SK trying to claw back their guarantee fee.

If that is indeed what has happened, then it is an textbook example of government interference in normal international trade deals to benefit a domestic exporter.

It would one of the most clear-cut example to date of blatant protectionism and abuse of government power.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I read that as BAE saying they are not in breach of contract, because it was the US government who was in effect manufacturing all the additional, out of scope costs (the reason for which SK cancelled the contract) by making BAE carry out expensive, and in BAE's expert opinion, unnecessary tests.

As such, BAE are feeling rather aggrieved at both loosing the contract through outside interference, and SK trying to claw back their guarantee fee.

If that is indeed what has happened, then it is an textbook example of government interference in normal international trade deals to benefit a domestic exporter.

It would one of the most clear-cut example to date of blatant protectionism and abuse of government power.
That would only be true if there was a direct assertion to that affect.

I have not seen one.

What would be helpful to know in this regard is whether the tests and requirements spoken of were suddenly manufactured outside of the scope of the original contract, or whether BAE is simply indicating that they are superfluous against its design.

That point has not bee made clear, but I suspect if in fact the US government simply came along and willy-nilly added all sorts of new tests and requirements that:

1) BAE would have definitively stated as much.
2) If that is shown to be the case, then BAE Is most certainly going to get its fee.

They may get it back anyway.

We shall see.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Incheon-01.jpg

Naval Today said:
In an effort to modernize its naval fleet, the South Korean Navy has launched a new guided missile frigate named Gwangju.

This is the sixth in a series of 20 vessels ordered by the Navy to be delivered by 2020. The new frigates are expected to replace the country’s old frigates and corvettes.

Gwangju will be handed over to the South Korean Navy by the end of 2016, after it completes its sea trials.

According to Korea Times, the vessel will undertake patrolling and defending tasks in South Korea’s waters.

With a crew of 120, the 2,300 ton frigate will be able reach a maximum speed of 30 knots.

These are decent 2,300 ton frigates. South Korea has launched six in the last four years. Three are commissioned, there fitting out. I expect another will commission in the relative near future.

The first seven are general purpose. They plan a batch that will be more heavily armed for air defense, and another batch to be more heavily armed for ASW.

More pics:

Incheon-02.jpg

Incheon-03.jpg

Incheon-04.jpg
 
found a moment ago
B-2s to deploy to Guam in support of South Korea
The Air Force will send three B-2 bombers to Guam as part of a normal rotation to bolster ally South Korea, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Monday.

"We are in the process right now of deploying three B-2s on a scheduled rotation to Andersen Air Base in Guam," Welsh said. "We continue to have airmen stationed on the Korean Peninsula who are there full time who are ready for whatever might happen, and they are ready everyday."

Welsh declined to say when the bombers would deploy, noting the sensitivity of operational information.

The Air Force routinely sends bombers to the Pacific to project power and to be ready for any situations that might arise. In 2013, B-2 stealth bombers flew directly into South Korean airspace as a warning to North Korea.

Welsh's comments come as North and South Korean leaders meet to reduce tension that began after patrolling South Korean soldiers were injured by a land mine in the two nations' Demilitarized Zone.

The general said he didn't see any drastic changes to the situation on the Asian peninsula.

"I think there's a lot of worrisome things about Korea, but I don't think any of it's new news," he told reporters during a news conference.

Welsh said he personally does not track day-to-day information on North Korean missile capabilities — both conventional and nuclear — but that it's something the Pentagon is very concerned about.

"Certainly they have a missile that can reach Hawaii or U.S. facilities in the Pacific, so that's what we're most worried about," he said. "I think it's something we have to pay a lot of attention to and we do every single day."
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

DSME ASR Announced Aug 2015.jpg

SeaWaves said:
August 26, 2015 (China News Network via Google Translate) - According to China National Defense Science and Technology Information Network reported that recently, South Korea's Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME) announced it will design a South Korean navy ship 6,300 tons of new submarine rescue ship, the Navy plans to deliver in 2021 to support plans to Delivery of the 3,000-ton South Korean navy submarine KSS-3 by the end of 2020.

South Korea announced DSME August 13 as the only bidder winning the submarine rescue ship design bidding, the ship was called ASR-2.

South Korean navy currently has a multi-purpose submarine rescue ship, namely 102 meters long, a displacement of 4300 tons of ROKS "Chang Hae Jin" sign (hull number 21), also has a 107 m long, a displacement of 3500 tons multipurpose salvage ship "Tongyeong" number, and can carry helicopters, is designed for submarine rescue and design. The two ships were built in DSME. Daewoo Shipbuilding in developing new submarine rescue ship design process, will build a sister ship.

It is reported that, with 3000 tons of KSS-3 diesel-electric submarine program delivery in 2020, the South Korean Navy began to seek new submarine rescue platform. ASR-2 from the initial idea of view, the ship will be different from the other ship, it is a ship specialized submarine rescue platform.

Daewoo Shipbuilding representative said: "The latest submarine rescue ship will enhance support capabilities to carry out more large-scale expansion of submarine work."
Earlier reports said the South Korean DSME Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) commissioned the first two KSS-3 submarine, the first boat in November 2014 cut the first piece of steel, will be delivered at the end of 2020 the South Korean Navy, the second ship It will be delivered in 2022, and plans to build as many as nine.
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
5DlAlIz.jpg

South Korean soldiers play the roles of both South and invading North Korean soldiers during a re-enactment of the 1950 Battle of Nakdong River to mark the 65th anniversary of the attack in the town of Waegwan in Chilgok
Picture: Getty Images


Back to bottling my Grenache
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
hmmm

"South Korea’s KF-X Set For Slow Progress In 2016"
Bradley Perrett
Sep 24, 2015

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


BEIJING — South Korea’s KF-X indigenous fighter program is likely to move slowly in 2016, with the finance ministry proposing funding that looks inadequate for beginning full-scale development.

The program also runs the risk that 20% partner Indonesia will pull out of the development, which is supposed to be led by Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI).

Further, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), having struggled to get critical U.S. technology for KF-X, now concedes that it will have to approach suppliers in Europe or elsewhere.

The defense ministry proposed that parliament allocate 160 billion won ($133 million) for KF-X development in 2016, a figure that seemed barely adequate for even the first year of full-scale development. The finance ministry, in charge of the government’s final proposal to the parliament, has cut the request to just 67 billion won.

The reason for not seeking more money may be that the defense ministry has not yet signed a contract with KAI, despite choosing the company in March as the preferred prime contractor.

Parliament must decide by the end of the year how much it will allocate for 2016. It tends not to exceed finance ministry requests but could do so.

The finance ministry last year gave general approval for spending 8.8 trillion won on fully developing the KF-X but, again, parliament has the final say in year-to-year allocations.

Indonesia has been paying 20% of the cost of preliminary KF-X development, also assigning engineers to the design office run by the defense ministry’s Agency for Defense Development, the chief proponent of building the fighter. South Korean officials are not confident that Indonesia will stick with the program, however. Indonesia, with a budget heavily dependent on commodity exports in a weak market, has seen its currency drop about 18% over the past year.

A third problem, though one that was quite predictable, is that the U.S. will not supply technology that South Korea has wanted for KF-X, even though DAPA hoped that the selection of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning for the separate F-X Phase 3 program would secure the know-how.

DAPA says the U.S. has refused to provide technology for a radar with an active electronically scanned array and is also withholding the know-how for infrared search and tracking. The U.S. would supply the relevant equipment but not the engineering information needed for South Korea to be able to control its integration. Dissatisfied, DAPA will instead look abroad for such systems. South Korea wants to develop indigenous sensors for later versions of the KF-X.

For two other technologies that the U.S. will not share — electronic warfare and the integration of a targeting pod — DAPA will directly seek domestic development.

Industry sources have said for years that the U.S. would not share such sensitive technologies for KF-X.

DAPA has come under severe criticism in the South Korean press for suggesting that it would ultimately be able to persuade Washington to agree even though it is now obvious that it could not.

Lockheed Martin is expected to provide less sensitive technologies, however.
 
Top