Both the ROK and Singapore ran competitive fighter acquisitions. It was up to Boeing to respond to their requests for tenders. Boeing offered the F-15s, not the F/A-18s to these competitions. Did this mean the F-15 and the F/A-18 were assessed against each other for the ROK and Singapore - yes - but only in Boeing's board room. The same as in the India competition, where Boeing has selected the F/A-18 to offer. The ADBR-E report provides this detail in response to a few other commentaries (as referenced in the report) that pointed to the ROK and Singapore buys of the F-15 as somehow indicating it was a preferred choice.
I understand Boeing put forward a tender, however if the F18E/F B2 was considered by either of those two governments to truely be a more capable, cheaper and all around better alternative they would have put in a request for it. Now Boeing could have said no, but somehow i doubt that, especially with eurocanards in the hunt in both races. The SAF ad ROKDF (?) would both be aware of each platforms capabilities in general terms, so i doubt the only time a SH was considered was in a Boeing board room. So obviosly the F15E block 2 fulfills their needs, and their happy enough with the polatform not to consider the SH. Now does this alone indicate that the F15E B2 is somehow a better platform than he Rhino B2 as various commentators have stated? No, ofcource not. However does that show that Singapore and ROK had no choice whatsoever in the matter and would take what they are given:i.e. the aquisition being wholey attributed to boeings marketing campaign, which is IMO the gist of the article, i disagree.
Not quite. Profit within legitimate OEM Defence industry is very much a product of revenue. Countries like the ROK, Singapore and Australia and the USA expect to see a complete accounting of the company’s expenditure of funds. Which includes the provision of profit margins. This is muddying the water. To argue that the F/A-18 which derives much less revenue for Boeing could somehow be more profitable is ridiculous.
That all depends margin per unit. If both platforms have the same margin as a percentile then the sale of 24 F15E's should produce ~30% more real profit. However if the margin is higher on the SH than it is on the SE then that number will move quite a bit. I agree that it is unlikely that boeing would generate more profit from the SH sale, however using the gross revenue as evidience of this is missleading, intentionally so i'd bet. Revenue without the assosiated cost is irrelevent. They could be selling them for $1bn but if it cost them $999 990 000 they arnt going to make all that much are they.
Not quite. Refuelling time is not simply determined by offload time. The aircraft have to formate and match up with the tanker. Any IFR professional well tell you it is much easier with a single tanker to throughput a fighter four of probe aircraft two at a time with a than it is one at a time for receptacle fighters.
Really?? i would have assumed the formation time per aircraft would be similar, and 4 aircraft still have to form up on the tanker, boom or no boom. The only significant practicle benifit i can see is 2 at a time. Hence 7 minets vs 12, perhaps its closer to 10 vs 15?
Anyway would you consider this small (IMO) dissadvantage worthy of a statement like we would have to double our tanking fleet so we can refule at a similar time??? laughable. the USAF contines to use this system so it cant be that inferior. Anyway if the planed 100 F35A aquisition goes ahead then all of ourplatforms will use a boomb, however this is hardly a reason to aquire F35C is it?
The ADBR-E does mention the range advantage of the F-15 and the payload ‘advantage’ as well. However it contextualises the payload issue in terms of likely loads. Sure the F-15E can carry more Mk80 500lb bombs on multiple ejector racks but this isn’t how the RAAF will use the aircraft.
Neverthless extra payload = extra flexability and in some cases capability. An SE's SDB payload may well be very usefull to the RAAF in comparison to a SH's. However this isnt a critical issue in the debate, as both platform's would meet the RAAF's needs in terms of payload.
What they didnt adress at all was the advatages SE B2 enjoys over SH, just the other way around, which alone indicates how balanced the report is.
Its intent is also clearly stated – to critically rip apart all the anti-F/A-18 nonsense that had been floating around earlier this year from the likes of APA and others. Considering the ADBR-E report references its statements and any conclusions are explained rather than stated and assumed as gospel makes it hard to draw a bow that it is a case of IO.
I think its intent was more to further the authors side of the argument, rather than just illuminate the truth.
Anyway does it do that in a ballanced way??? No. It, to some extent, uses the exact same tactics as APA, only showing a protion of the argument, ommiting important facts and exagerating the effects of sertain points such as drogue refuleing.
The fact that the two principals of APA claim a financial interest in the RAAF ever acquitting the F-22 and upgrading the F-111 is significantly important. Since they never informed anyone of this when they made claims of being an independent think tank arguing that the RAAF was acquiring the wrong force structure. Conflict of interest is an important element of the public debate in an open democracy like Australia. The people expect to know if someone selling them something is a salesman working for a commission. Rightly we assess that their judgments and arguments in favour of their product could be coloured by the big fat paycheque they would expect to receive at the end. APA and in particular Peter Goon and Carlo Kopp have not declared this conflict of interest openly and freely but only begrudgingly with as little fanfare as possible.
How exsactly do APA stand to gain financially from the RAAF aquireing the F22? Sureley they cant have any itelectual property rights on an F22 in RAAF colours? F111S idea maybe.
I agree a financial conflict of interest should be disclosed. However outlineing that without dealing with said offenders argument is just a good way to discredit your opponant without adressing the points they make. Just because someone has an interest in something does not automatically mean any points they make are not valid. (in general terms, not specifically)
Outlineing APA explicitly in the article to the extent this one has, and the other argumentative tactics indicates that the author is not a neutral observer but on the "opposite side" to APA if you will. Therefore i'm questioning the articles impartiality.
Generally the media is happy to promote controversy for their own commercial interests. More argument means more people reading newspapers. But to argue that ADBR was carrying out information warfare – which means deception – purely to promote more debate over the BACC decision is pretty out there. Almost a good enough argument to grace a page over at Air Power Australia… put it beside the Chinese Tu-22s and AWACs killer missile pages.
The point i was making is that if you are going to accuse APA of information warfare, because of the litterary tactics used by CK, then you might want to extend this lable to ABDR, because they utilise those very devices. Anyway i doubt the intention of said article was purely to sell articles, it was probably more likely aimed at CK directly, rather than "herald sun" type hyperbolie designed to sell sell sell.
As i said before i agree with the articles conclusions, but i dont reguard its analysis as ballanced.
