Skip to comments.GE wants part in domestic fighter jet development (South Korea)
Posted on 08/21/2014 4:33:38 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
General Electric Korea on Thursday expressed its willingness to join the South Korean governments plan to develop a double-engine platform for its next generation of fighter jets.
The U.S.-based conglomerate said it could do more good when collaborating with Korean companies in the KFX project, while promoting its rich history and competitiveness in the global aerospace industry.
GE has played a significant role in the development of Koreas aerospace defense industry by providing jet engines, avionics and integrated systems, said Khang Sung-wook, president and CEO of GE Korea, at a press conference in Seoul.
Through the KFX program, GE seeks to elevate its level of contribution to the growth and development of Koreas aerospace defense industry by expanding collaboration on the development of engine technologies and supporting exports of Korean fighter jets.
This will help Korea to localize its production of engines, as well as create more jobs and nurture aerospace experts, he added.
GE has installed 1,300 engines in a total of 600 fighter jets in Korea.
The company has locally produced the F404 engine for Koreas first supersonic jet trainer T-50, and transferred its major manufacturing lines for the LM2500 engine for Aegis destroyers.
Khang said GE could also contribute to the KFX program in terms of marketing, noting its support for exports of the T-50 and FA-50 jets with GE engines to Indonesia, Iraq and the Philippines.
Not many people thought Korea could export the jets but I believed that GEs vast global network has supported the whole overseas sales process on some level. This could be the case for the KFX, he said.
However, the company failed to elaborate on the possible technology transfer it has pledged for the KFX.
Given that aircraft engines are classified as confidential, the chances of Korea inheriting GEs know-how are low, market insiders say.
Because everything is still in an early stage, we will have to wait for the South Korean governments decision on the issue, Khang said.
The ambitious plan to develop and produce twin-engine fighter jets with a better stabilizing function and operational efficiency has not yet been made public.
The Defense Acquisition Program Administration is expected to launch the tender for the project by the end of September. Companies including Korea Aerospace Industries are expected to bid.
The development cost for the double-engine platform is expected to be around 8.5 trillion won ($8.2 billion), according to the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses.
By Bae Ji-sook (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Only reason I see for GE to do this would be to sabotage from the inside, then offer to broker a “deal” with the us gov for a us aircraft..
Has happened before.
The Avro Arrow was canceled in part due to pressure from our leadership in favor of exporting the Voodoo interceptor as a “cheaper” alternative.
It happened due to predatory intervention just the same.
Not mentioned here, but present none the less:
That, was “replaced” with this:
The Arrow was the superior aircraft.
That the Deifenbaker government canceled it was merely a formality, the fate was decided elsewhere.
I wouldn’t trust GE, “helpful” suggestions usually aren’t.
Just look to the Arrow vs Voodoo “replacement” to see how unhelpful “helpful” can be.
I will be VERY surprised if the South Korean aircraft doesn’t get sandbagged and someone doesn’t suggest F-35s to them as a “helpful” suggestion.
There is really no mystery about why Hawker Siddeley’s, always British-owned, Arrow was cancelled and it did not involve Eisenhower or anyone else in the U.S.
The Arrow program was doomed after the Liberals decided to cancel it in 1957 because as History Professor Michael Bliss once said, “[...] no responsible government could have continued to support the Arrow.[...]”. Canada, which had about 17 million people at the time, could not afford to pay a British-owned company $2 billion to develop and produce a couple of hundred aircraft. Especially at a time when a new Cadillac Sedan DeVille listed for about $5500.
When the Liberals decided to cancel the Arrow program in 1957 continuing with it would have cost taxpayers at least four times as much as buying Voodoo interceptors in their place.
From the article “Liberals Planned to Cancel the Arrow” on page 2 in :”The [Montreal] Gazette” 23 OCT 63, “Gen. Charles Foulkes testified yesterday that the Liberal Government of Prime Minister St. Laurent decided in 1957 it would cancel the Arrow interceptor program as soon as it was returned to power in that year's election.[...] Gen. Foulkes confirmed the 1958 statement of Mr. Diefenbaker that the chiefs of staff had recommended cancellation of the Arrow. Gen. Foulkes said the chiefs concluded it didn't make sense to produce an $8,000,000 interceptor in Canada when one could be obtained in the U.S. for $2,000,000. They couldn't see where the money would come from.[...]”
It should be noted that the $8 million figure is the additional amount needed to purchase the Arrows and not the total cost of the program to the taxpayer. That would have been about $2 billion for 206 aircraft or $9.7 million each if the Arrow program had continued without cost increases.
The $2 million figure Gen. Foulkes gave appears to be for the Voodoos that were purchased instead of the Arrows but that price included spare parts. The list price of a new Voodoo by itself at that time was around $1.85 million and a Delta Dart was about double that at $3.75 million.
The Liberals had decided to cancel the Arrow program before Canada joined NORAD or Sputnik was launched. This means Bomarc missiles and/or ICBMs could not have been major factors in their decision.
See Gazette article at http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Fr8DH2VBP9sC&dat=19631023&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
The stuff about superior performance is also liberal fiction. The Arrow entered production and six were made before the program was shut down. Five had P&W engines and the sixth had experimental Orenda Iroquois engines. One of the Iroquois engines in the sixth Arrow “threw a blade” and the aircraft could not be flown. Nevertheless the performance of that aircraft is known because both the aircraft and engines were tested separately and their parameters recorded. The performance of an Arrow Mk. 2 was then calculated using standard equations and recorded.
Here are the most interesting bits:
Maximum continuous operating speed for the Arrow Mk. 1 and 2 was Mach 1.9. The proposed Mk.3 version would have been limited to Mach 1.5 to reduce fuel consumption. By the time the Arrow flew the Starfighter already held the FAI speed record at Mach 2.13. The Arrow could “dash” to Mach 2 and beyond for a few minutes but that was not enough to set any records. The Arrow's maximum service ceiling was 56,000 feet compared to about 54,000 for a Voodoo and 58,000 for a Delta Dart. The Arrow's maximum ferry range was 1254 nm compared to 1900+ for the Voodoo [Interceptor version. The fighter version's range was “holy crap, that can't be right”.]
History Professor Desmond Morton was right when he described the Arrow as “fatally flawed” and Aerospace Engineering Professor Julius Lukasiewicz was also right when he said “there was nothing extraordinary about it”
Diefenbaker's government simply continued with the Liberal’s plan to cancel the program and there is no mystery at all as to the real reasons why the Arrow was cancelled. Virtually all of the rest is liberal political propaganda.