More evidence why Korea really, really needs to upgrade its Air Force. Tragic, but perhaps to be expected when you’re flying antique F-4s and F-5s.
Note the lost Nomad’s post on the F-4 — nice pics.
BTW, the Korean-language Yonhap report says U.S. forces are assisting in the search operations in both incidents.
22 Comments
So is it really such a great idea to “upgrade” their 40-year old Nikes with 20-year old Patriot PAC-2’s?
This is a very serious inquiry: We are told by some people that South Korea’s military is perfectly capable of defending itself from the North by itself, but here this is saying that the ROK Air Force is full of really old aircraft. Is South Korea really militarily capable, as is said, or would it require billions of dollars more in upgrades to make it capable in the future? Or something else?
Are South Koreans willing to spend the money needed to fully upgrade? Probably not, if they can rely on the US to cover the costs. When push comes to shove, I would have to agree with Kushibo and others who say that ultimately, SKers dont want the Yanks to leave. It would cost them too much if they did.
Can’t say I blame them, after all, in Canada, we have a pitifully small military backed up, if need be, by major American forces (of course i wonder about those who are all too happy to bite the hand that feeds or in this case, the hand that provides the security). Who wouldnt rather pay less in taxes?
They are in the process of upgrading the planes to US’s upgraded version of F-15’s. That was what all the hoopla was about couple of years ago with all the debates about which next generation fighter planes to pick - US planes or French planes. I think the Korean airforce still have about 80 F-4’s and 50 F-5’s. It will take some time to replace them with the new planes. I guess the question should be, why didn’t they start the upgrading sooner.
That little incident about the choice of old tech [F15] over the latest tech [Rafale] would be worth a whole blog. So much corruption, influence peddling, threats, “insincerity”, and generally bad faith happened during the tender process. Say what you want about us Frenchies, but when your product gets the best marks in all categories [including price] repeatedly during the evaluation process, and the client chooses the other product, something real bad happened…
dda, wasn’t it the French who were caught trying to bribe government officials? Why, yes it was.
Say what you want about us Frenchies, but when your product gets the best marks in all categories [including price] repeatedly during the evaluation process, and the client chooses the other product, something real bad happened?€?
Yeah, but the F-15 gets the best mark in the only category that counts — 101 to 0:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-.....5_back.htm
If it means anything to you, Seoul will be looking to pick up more state-of-the-art fighters within the next 10 years, so perhaps you can try to pawn some Rafale off to them them, although the smart money is on the JSF.
Kushibo — good question. Yes, we make fun of the 30-year-old F-5s and F-4s, and yes, Korea should definitely upgrade, but if you think the ROKAF has its faults, check out what the Korean People’s Army Air Force has to play with:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/.....ipment.htm
Pretty it is not. Not only is much of their air force museum pieces, but probably poorly maintained museum pieces, and I can’t imagine — energy crisis and all — that their pilots are logging a whole lot of flight time.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that even as it stands now, the ROKAF is probably more than capable of defending South Korean air space, and if Seoul decided to invest in the kind of air force the nation deserves, it wouldn’t even be a fight.
Beyond the airplane performance issues, Marmot, what really tipped the balance is the fact that the ROK military has always been and it still is, staunchly loyal to the US military. Say what you want about anti-Americanism amongst some Korean government officials and some ngo citizens, but the Korean military is still very much pro-USA because the relationship is written in blood.
Oh, another note today said that a Korean plane slipped up on a bombing exercise and the pratice bombs dropped partically damaged a nearby green house.
I wonder if we will see protests against that range?
said dda: So much corruption, influence peddling, threats, ?€œinsincerity?€?, and generally bad faith happened during the tender process. Say what you want about us Frenchies, but when your product gets the best marks in all categories [including price] repeatedly during the evaluation process, and the client chooses the other product, something real bad happened?€?
Yeah, something really “bad.” That time a French president didn’t arrive in Seoul with one of the manuscripts France stole from the royal library at Kanghwa Island to dangle it in front of the Korean people, along with promises about trying to have those books returned, like was done to win the high-speed rail contract.
said Marmot: If it means anything to you, Seoul will be looking to pick up more state-of-the-art fighters within the next 10 years, so perhaps you can try to pawn some Rafale off to them them, although the smart money is on the JSF.
Maybe they should try the same TGV/?™¸?·œ????°? trick. Ten years plenty of time to plot that one.
I don’t know nothing about military matters, but my sophomoric gleaning of the internet turned up the opinion that the “insides” of a fighter, the weapons systems inside the fighter, was more important and that F-15K would be a fighter that is substantially more capable than the regular F-15Es that US flies, or even more than the F-15 that the JAF uses. (well now, THAT’s a selling point, ain’t it?)
But then again, who knows? I’ve been known to get suckered by sales people. (the “inside” of this hyundai pony is superior to the new toyota corolla)
But does that mean that all those hoopla by conservative US senators about the wisdom of selling advanced US military technology in this deal would be just a sales gimmick??!! Well, shucks me!
The moral of this story is, you become a loyal customer to the seller who gives you tons of free stuff.
First, I want to know if the F-4 that crashed and the majority of them in the air today — are decades old planes –
or, were these planes built not so long ago in Korea?
I know Korea has contracts to build all or parts of new FA-18s and other planes — old designs, but new planes, and I was told the same is true for the F-4. That the planes you see flying were built in Korea — not in the US in the 1970s or 80s. They are 35 year old DESIGNS - not 35 year old planes.
Second,
Here is an old review of the FX scandal.
http://www.geocities.com/usink.....ghter.html
I did a much more indepth paper on the contreversy, but I doubt I can find it now.
What really got me about it was how —- any time a USFK leader, US congressman, or somebody else connected to the US government mentioned the selection process or the merits of the version of the F-15 Korea was going to partly build if it picked it —- the Korean papers and even Korean politicians would scream of horrible US “bully” tactics.
But the French send a former high level politician and the president sends a letter to complain about the process or other things, and a local firm connected to the French gets caught in a bribery scandal and getting insider information about the process, and the Korean media and government and protesters don’t even pay attention.
And in the FX process of rage, the common idea held was that Korea was going to buy “ancient” used planes that the US Air Force was getting rid of.
Few people you’d talk to, and few of the articles written, laid out that the contract was for NEW F-15s with upgraded technology.
And that the F-15 is still at the top of the fighters in service around the world, and the Korean version would be at the cutting edge of the F-15 air frame.
Korea would not pay the amount of costs it would take to buy F-22 raptors even if the US would sell its latest next generation fighter to other nations now.
And next, South Korea is facing only one true enemy now and in the foreseeable future — North Korea.
I don’t know about this military stuff, but I would like to know if SK is pumping out new F-4s with today’s technology on board, would this fleet of old generation airplane DESIGN would still not be enough to handle the cash and fuel starved NK and its fleet of air planes that they can’t afford to practice using or maintain or its air defenses?
It seemed to me the rage of the FX selection process was just another example of a whole lot of noise and misdirected anger with too little thought.
If South Korea had picked the French plane or the others that had made it to the last cuts, they would have been buying a high quality fighter that would have been superior to what North Korea has to offer.
And if SK ever has to go against China or Japan, whether it has F-15 or F-4s of the French fighter will be the least of its concern….
I forgot, I found a website that said the Israeli Air Force was flying what they call F-4 2000s — recently built F-4s outfited with state of the art contemporary technology.
And the Israeli Air Force is not known to be useless….
The F4 is an old design it is true. I do not know where the ones the Korean air force flies were built. I do know that a certain number of the F16s it flies were built here in Korea by Samsung and that for a while, they were grounded due to quality related safety issues that led to a number of crashes in a relatively short time. I think that the F15, despite the fact that it too is an aging design, is widely regarded as the best conventional fighter in the world assuming the avionics etc. are updated. It is no secret that Korea Inc. would like to get into the airplane and weapons manufacturing business and they stand to learn much from acquiring the F15 I think.
Interestingly enough, one of the other fighters that was looked at as part of the FX project was, I believe the Su 27 or Mig 29 which can apparently be purchased by anyone with the cash and the ability to fly one (http://www.worldwidewarbirds.com/Mig_29_Sale.aspx).
The evaluation of the NKAF makes them sound like paper tigers-not much to be afraid of. Fuel shortages, power outages etc I am sure seriously detract from their ability to put together much of a credible air threat. The fact that hungry and disillusioned troops and citizens are not exactly the most motivated bunch to fight to save a system that fails to provide the ability for them to take care of their own needs.
Just about everything except the basic airframe on a modern combat aircraft can be (and routinely is) replaced and even upgraded, as long as there is a market for it (ie the aircraft continues in common service worldwide).
I think the USAF has phased out all of its F4s by now. But if any are left in the USAF Air Guard or Reserve, or even if the USAF keeps some available in the storage facility in AZ, then there is still a market for all the parts needed to maintain it.
I think (not sure) that the F5 is used as a USAF jet trainer, when entry level pilots are progressing through the various stages of fighter pilot training.
And even if not, if other countries (such as the Israel) are still flying both or either acft, then then there is a market for all the parts. Both are still highly capable combat aircraft. The key is the comparison to the caliber of the likely opposition, as pointed out above by others.
I can’t read Korean to get the details of the
crash(es), but if both aircraft disappeared simultaneously then it is likely that there was a mid-air collision. This would most likely be a function of pilot error or avionics failure, and the cause of the crash would have nothing to do with the “age” of the aircraft.
Korean airforce flies F-4E’s, a modified version of the 1960’s Vietnam War era design, modified, upgraded, and commissioned in the early 1980’s. It really is an old plane. Korea does not manufacture these planes. F-16’s, bought in the late 1980’s on the other hand, were manufactured in Korea.
I’ve been googling around, and I can’t find any good info yet, but it is hard for me to believe all the F-4s I saw practicing for an air show in the late 1990s were pre-1990 made planes. There were waves after waves of them flying over our apartment for about a week. If they were, then Korea’s mechanics do deserve a great hand…
usinkorea,
kimbob is correct - the F-4E’s the ROKAF flies are the original jets built in the 60’s and 70’s. I was stationed at Osan in the late 80’s when we were replacing our 3 squadrons of F-4E’s with F-16’s and some (not sure if it was all) of the F-4E’s were totally repainted and left Osan with the Korean flag on them.
Twas a sad day, to see the Phantoms replaced with lawn darts.
I put up three links to pages where I put up a bibliography for the three major English language papers that give free access to archives. All the stories relate to the FX Selction Process. I did it as part of my now forgotten effort to get a better review of the event on the usinkorea website…
http://www.koreasojourner.blog-city.com
Nomad, thanks for the info….
The ?¤?????????? books were taken as a “prise de guerre” as a retaliation for Korea murdering French priests. And the thing that clinched the TGV contract was not Mitterrand’s little trick, but a huge bribe given by Alst[h]om. And the only one who paid for that is Mme Cariou, the wife of the then General Manager of Alst[h]om Korea.
So my guess is the bribe by the Yanks was maybe bigger this time [along of course with the threats not to provide any more support for the other fighters Korea had purchased from the US. That was a good incentiv e...]
The US spends about 3 billion dollars annually out of its defense budget to pay for its defense expenditures related to USFK. This amount subsidizes the defense of the ROK far in excess of certain ROK government payments that cover a portion of such US expenses. Are these US government expenditures (in excess of ROK payments to the US) what you mean by a “bribe”?
The Marmot has documented some of the details of this here before. Often, this fact meets with incredulity on the part of many (perhaps even most) ROK citizens, who cannot comprehend such “generosity”. Indeed, many ROK citizens evidently believe the opposite to be the case (ie, that the US makes a net profit from the stationing of its forces in the ROK!)
I sense that the current ROK administration finds it convenient not to go out of its way to educate its own citizenry on the facts of the matter.
And perhaps it is inherent to the nature of most cynical Frenchmen to disbelieve this also. I gather it is routine for French “private” defense contractors (with a “wink” from their own government)to make bribes and kickbacks to foreign governments to promote arms sales, so I suppose you assume that US defense companies routinely do this as well.
I expect you will greet my assertion to the contrary with equal cynicism, but other readers here may be interested to know that US companies are forbidden by law to engage in bribery overseas (as I recall, the law was passed by the US Congress after a notorious scandal in the 80’s).
Of course, as far as I’m concerned the ROK is always “free” to purchase whatever weapons it wants. For myself, I’d even welcome a hypothetical purchase by the ROK of some no-doubt-excellent French weapon systems, as providing a “clarifying moment” for US Congressmen and taxpayers as to the current nature of the US-ROK alliance and the need for its drastic revision.
Mon ami, I expect that the stationing of a division of French troops in ROK, along with a military alliance between ROK and France, would do wonders for French military arms sales there. Indeed, I like to think that sharp French bargaining and diplomacy could arrange for such an alliance and such a stationing to be a most profitable arrangement, at least for certain French companies and individuals (and who knows, maybe even for hard-pressed French taxpayers too).
However, short of such an arrangement, your complaints about US arms sales to ROK seem a little forced, when considered in light of the overall picture of US and ROK total defense expenditures for the peninsula.
I followed the FX selection process extensively, though I can’t use Korean sources much, and I’m sure if the US had gotten caught red handed or even close to red handed in a bribe, the English langauge versions would have jumped all over it. They were constantly screaming about “pressure” and the possibility of bribes already.
But, the only verified disclosure of bribes involved a Korean firm representing the French. It was particularlly interesting that the “unnamed” source that gave so much of the “damning information” about how big a piece of shit the F-15 was testing out to be and how much pressure the US was bullying Korea with — turned out to be the ROK colonel on the French secret pay roll.
I would not be shocked if the US company didn’t do some money throwing too.
But, the closest thing I found to a bribery scandal with the US side was something about someone connected to a politician or key player having a son or close relative who was given a cushy position at Georgia Tech or something like that. It didn’t pan out, from what I can remember, and it wasn’t a straight out — “We’ll give you money if you put out disinformation (or correct and damaging information) about the F-15 and Americans and if you’ll give us a heads up on the documentation the testing body is looking at and an idea about where our bid stands with them” which is exactly what the French got caught doing.
What bothered me more, however, was that Chirac and a former top politician and the French company would promote their fighter in the media and among Korean politicians and the government, and the Korean press would not jump up and down and pull their hair out. Usually, if the French took a swipe at the F-15, the press would report it and often back it up as the correct version of the truth.
But, if Donald Rumsfeld was going to come to Korea in the same period the decision making process was happening, he’d have to cancel the trip, because the Korean press and politicans were going nuts.
A USFK or US Embassy leader said something about the F-15, and Korea reacted like we had punched them in the balls.
And really, I felt bad for the Korean government. If you read the articles, you’ll find different times where the Kim Dae Jung administration refused to meet or accept letters from Tony Blair or other EU leaders who had a plane in the hunt for the contract, and they sometimes refused to meet with other European representatives.
So, I can at least stomach when someone in the administration complained about a USFK or US leader mentioning the F-15.
The Korean press and Assembly and people put the Kim Dae Jung administration in an impossible position.
I see nothing wrong with what the French did, except the bribe, but I didn’t see anything outrageous with most of what the US did either.
The Koreans, on the other hand……