via Press Release.
Airbus Helicopters will join with Korea Aerospace Industries in developing two 5-ton class rotorcraft that meet South Korea’s requirements for its next-generation Light Civil Helicopter (LCH) and Light Armed Helicopter (LAH).
As the LCH and LAH competition winner, Airbus Helicopters will continue its highly successful relationship with Korea Aerospace Industries, including the joint program that developed Korea’s Surion twin-engine utility transport helicopter.
“We would like to express our deep gratitude to Korea Aerospace Industries and the South Korean government for entrusting us with this major helicopter program,” said Airbus Helicopters President Guillaume Faury. “We are committing our full support in ensuring the LCH and LAH projects will be completed on time, on cost and to specification.”
Both the LCH and LAH will be based on Airbus Helicopters’ H155 (formerly known as the EC155) – the latest evolution of its best-selling Dauphin family, which includes the Panther military and parapublic variants that have demonstrated their capabilities in operation around the world.
As part of the new commitment, Airbus Helicopters will transfer the company’s technical know-how – as already demonstrated in the Surion program – to ensure Korea is able to develop its newest indigenous products, which will become leading next-generation light rotorcraft in the 5 metric ton weight category.
“The LCH and LAH programs will build on our collaboration with Korea Aerospace Industries on the Surion, which has become a reference in successful rotorcraft collaboration. By continuing our relationship, we will significantly reduce the risks of these two new development programs, while meeting all of the mission requirements,” added Faury.
The LCH version is expected to enter service in 2020 while the service introduction of the LAH is targeted for 2022.
This is not the biggest military deal the Airbus will bag over the next few months, as Airbus is said to be leading in the KFX development contract. Airbus will also bag the $1.4 billion tanker contract in order to reduce the amount of payment the Korean government owes to Airbus for its participation in KFX program.
ReplyDeleteThe deal breaker for Lockheed Martin was the Indonesian participation. The US government demanded the exclusion of Indonesia from the development program as the precondition, but Korea couldn't because Indonesian purchase of 80 jets(Korea's buying 120 for a total of 200 units) for Block I was critical in building the economy of scale and making the whole thing affordable. Indonesia essentially boycotted Lockheed Martin and signed an MOU with Airbus, which had the Korean government's hands tied.
It's time for America the World Police to retire and come home. Let China and Putin police the world.
ReplyDeleteLooks like China will accomplish their 100 year marathon around 29 years early fan-fucking-tastic. The United States was the old World Hegemon lets meet the new world Hegemon China!
ReplyDeletewe didn't even make it a challenge. we just handed it over like a beer at a party.
ReplyDeleteThis chart speaks for itself.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/articles/aircraft_table.jpg
http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/files/2014/02/24/US-defense-chart.png
ReplyDeleteThere is a certain appeal and logic to arming high performance, high maneuverable helicopters, like this, the Lynx Wildcat, the Lakota and others. Its likely cheaper then a dedicated 2-seater and on top more versatile, being able to carry troops wile the downsides get less with modern helmet-sights and such.
ReplyDelete@Don. The problem and I know you are aware of this, yeah, we spend more money than the rest of the world but we are wasting way too much on POS like LCS and F35. We also want everything to be a gold plated silver bullet, we need to be more selective on what we spend our money on. We should have told the USN to just buy more SH and Growlers instead on the F35C, money saved. Does the USAF need some kind of customized tanker like KC46, no, just buy the same damn tanker KC767 Italy/Japan bought. Money saved. The list just goes on and on.....
ReplyDeleteJust using some common sense, we could have a far stronger and more balanced military....
Yes, many aspects
ReplyDelete--corrupt politicians tied to corporations
--corrupt Pentagon wasting money
--overseas adventures
And there's no danger that China and Putin would police the world. That's ridiculous. Do China and Russia have combatant commands spanning the world, with bases surrounding the U.S.? I don't think so. Such talk belongs in a kindergarten.
Of course they wouldn't 'police the world' the way that we (the US) has, rather, I think he was referring to China and Russia exerting political influence over 'the world' as hegemons.
ReplyDeleteNote some critics were warning of this 'bow wave' being imminent, via DoD staying the course, back in at least 2008, or earlier.
ReplyDeleteFlat out, DoD has plenty of money to procure a sufficient deterrent force structure and modern capability... that's not the debate.
The debate and discussion is on how DoD (and to lesser degree, Congress) could have mis-appropriated and miscalculated (prudent modernization strategy) so poorly over the years, given the Defense dollars budgeted. Only in the USA is there so little in terms of actual modernization and recapitalization (maintaining deterrence and capability) attained, for the total budget allocated.
That's some serious competition. Where there are inherent flaws, there will likely be alternative solutions. It just takes the political resolve and capacity to shift course, prudently and not based on Industrial complex lobbying pressure, et al. Good analysis on that comment btw too.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the geniuses in the Five-Sided Puzzle Palace or Congress won't reform the US military. They won't even reform procurement or force structure. They won't take a look at reorganization or restructuring.
ReplyDeleteWe have an opportunity to totally reshape our military and procurement for the 21st century, but I don't think the military nor the Congress nor the executive branch have the smarts and the independence from military-industrial-complex campaign dollars to do anything important.
They'll just shrink the manpower and purchase fewer numbers of the same platforms and we'll be left with the same flawed military, thus resulting in a smaller, less capable version of what we currently have. We will enter into the 2020s with a force that is essentially organized along the same lines of one we had in 1947.
We're doomed
It looks nice... as a graphic. So what you lad's think? what will happen when we rent a room for the prom night for AS565 and Tiger?
ReplyDeleteFind 3 things from daddy... ;)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Australian_Army_ARH_Tiger_front_view.jpg/800px-Australian_Army_ARH_Tiger_front_view.jpg
Well said. If we were even half on our game, China wouldn't stand a chance. But we're passed out in the corner.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that will turn this train wreck around is a real war. Not the current proxy 3rd world CIA bullshit, but a peer conflict that smacks us upside the head enough for us to finally regain our senses as a nation. Remember what it took for Patton (a political pain in the ass) to be brought into front-line duty. The cold hard reality of defeat that pushed all the political bullshit aside. And that was in a politically and economically healthier time in American History.
ReplyDeleteMy fear though, is that we're so far gone that we're France circa 1939. Full of the wrong doctrine, and the wrong weapons to do the job with. Facing enemies that understand our weaknesses all too well.
Everyone has seen the train wreck coming. Hell, the train wreck was used to justify the "cost savings" of the F-35 program when it was first conceived. The cure became the cancer, because it's in nobody's financial or political interest to do the job right.
ReplyDeleteThe USA is the only country deluded enough to want to police the world in the first place. Russia and China, by contrast, seem to have a very 'colonial' mindset of walking into smaller nations and offering them good deals on things they need in return for whatever Russia and China want. Whereas we use the World Bank to turn countries into debt slaves for the banking class.
ReplyDeleteThe Korean Army didn't want this; they actually wanted a Korean Hind, basically a Surion modified to look and function like a Hind. Unfortunately, the funding for this program doesn't come out of military budget, but from a civilian industrial development budget by the industrial ministry, so there had to be a civilian variant and this is the outcome.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just the LCS and the F35. Even the Abrams MBT is a piece of shit from a logistical and strategic point of view. It consumes so much of the vehicle maintenance budget that the Army has been mothballing them as fast as it can. Where's the low-cost, reliable, 21rst Century replacement for that? Where's the light armor option that can cross the bridges and muddy ground that the Abrams can't?
ReplyDeleteIf China takes Taiwan, what are we going to do about it? Nothing, that's what. Because we don't have the weapons systems that we would need to go in and take it back.
I hate how I agree with your comment.
ReplyDeleteYep. Sadly, ironically, we owe a lot to the French in terms of doctrine. Their's was a firepower-centric doctrine that emphasized letting artillery conquer and infantry occupy. They were also very command-push and centralized. The only thing we've done differently is change the method of how we deliver ordnance.....we drop bombs instead.
ReplyDeleteWe have also been spinning all of our ambiguous wars since Vietnam: because we refuse to acknowledge we didn't win those conflicts (i.e. we lost), we instead re-write history with some public relations bullshit about how "we won all the battles and lost the war" so we don't have to ask ourselves tough questions like why we lost, what needs to be changed, etc.
Maybe if we reduce personnel costs like our Pentagon leaders want, we can save some programs.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we offer ranks of safety like SSgt where no promotion is needed and retirement is guaranteed instead of requiring promotion to guarantee better performance?
Why do we promote 2ndLts to 1stLt just because they have 2 years even though they are not ready for increased responsibility?
With the high cost of recruiting, could we save money by going to 5 or 6 year contracts?
Can we pay retirement at 65 instead of 38 (after 20 years)?
Not advertising the above as solutions, but if we look at where we can save money, we can probably increase performance and save money to keep some programs.
thats simple. after years of service many have the look of a young man but the body, scars and wear/tear of a man 20 years older. the rank system is designed to cultivate future leaders that have been identified and will later be evaluated to see if they actually "meet the need"...if you want to point a finger point it at the Bush Administration that increased benefits to the military...to include pay...at an outrageous rate during the war and now a price is being paid. if done more sensibly then you would see more Marines being retained as well as Infantry Battalions. also you can't get around the issue of dependents and the cost that they bring to the force especially since wives have suddenly become another protected class instead of part of a family that is working to do the best they can.
ReplyDeleteTo comment on your point about the Abrams. Isn't that what they are trying to achieve with the M1A3 variant? Lower maintenance, lighter armor, less thirsty diesel engine and better mobility for a reduced cost?
ReplyDeleteGo read up on the Somoa and Hotchkiss tanks. The French had procurement corruption back then that rivaled ours today.
ReplyDeleteYeah, compare to the situation to when Argentina took the Faulklands. The British retook the island with light tanks and infantry with little air support (the ship with the helos was sunk by an Exocet).
ReplyDeleteAir support for us will be VERY iffy. So where's our light quick-deploying tanks? The Chinese aren't going to give us 3 months to deliver a battalion or two of Abrams by ship the way that Saddam did, and I don't think anyone is deluded enough to think that the Stryker can do the job vs. real Chinese armor.
All I've heard is speculation on what the A3 will have. But I have it from a friend who's a former Abrams mechanic that the entire damn vehicle is designed to constantly fail in profitable (for the contractors) ways.
ReplyDeleteBut let's assume that the A3 finally gets the job done right, and we have a more reliable tank that doesn't suck 3X the fuel of anything else. The damn thing would still weigh north of 60 tons. Which just isn't workable for ANY theatre that isn't either a desert, or had their bridges/roads reinforced (Germany) to take their weight.
Which is why they were never deployed to Bosnia. Does Taiwan have favorable terrain for a 68 ton tank? I doubt it.
The Abrams would also still lack a real HE round, making it useless for engaging dug-in infantry beyond RPG range. Which is a deliberate oversight meant to make crews waste much more expensive AP rounds shooting nice clean holes through mud huts, but not actually killing anyone inside who's not hit directly.
Maybe US built Lakotas.
ReplyDeleteWe have always gone to war with the assumption that we will have unparalleled air support. This is obvious from multiple perspectives, such as the criminal reluctance to field a armored vehicle that is Stryker/LAV-ish with a 105mm gun and one with a 30mm automatic cannon. Not to mention the ignorance of utterly ignoring the concept of a light tank like the Buford. Or types of light and heavy SPAAG.
ReplyDeleteI never understood that frame of thinking. It is cornucopian overly optimistic bullshit.
The Stryker might be able to work in some situations, but the utter lack of SPAAGs is unforgivable.
ReplyDeleteThere was a PC wargame that I played back in the early 00's called "Shattered Nation" or some such. It's premise was that the USA had collapsed and fractured into around 9 territories, and you had to re-conquer them to win the game. You were given every US weapon system available at the time, and a few BS new ones that weren't worth using.
Anyhow, I eventually figured out what the optimum force structure was, which was B-2 Stealth bombers, a few F-22s, and fast Strykers to zip around and paint targets for them.
Which worked great until the end of the game, when the Russians invaded. Where my bombers got shot down by SPAAGs everywhere, my F-22s got overwhelmed by Russian fighters, and my Strykers weren't survivable enough against the Russian light/heavy tanks (and artillery) to spot shit.
Lesson? I was WAY to reliant on air support, and had let my ground forces wither to the point that I had no strategic/tactical depth to speak of. Because I had been fighting nothing but partisan technicals with a smattering of leftover US tanks and other hardware for too long. I wasn't ready for a well-equipped generalist force at all.
Sound familiar?
Whatever happened to that M113 Variant with the M61 vulcan on it? Did we really retire it?
ReplyDeleteBoth the M6 and the Avenger have too few shots, their missiles aren't going to be able to hit drones at close range, and neither has an air-search radar as far as I can tell. The Bradley will be a bit more survivable, but the Avenger can be rolled up by small arms fire and aircraft strafing.
ReplyDeleteCompare that to the ZSU-23, where you have the ability to engage all low-flying aircraft (inc. drones) with guns, radar-guided firing, and proper armor protection.
The final pic is of the last decent SPAAG we had, but it still lacked proper armor, a search radar, and was last fielded in the first gulf war.
ReplyDeleteJapan is looking for a troop transport helicopter like UH-1 and UH-60. Lakota is too small for that, nor is the license production available.
ReplyDeleteYuri Sponse
ReplyDeleteI just want to say both the army and the KAI are unhappy with this deal, but they have no choice because it is not the defense ministry paying for this program, but the industrial ministry.
The M6 linebacker isn't in mass service. It was withdrawn IIRC.
ReplyDeleteThe only SHORAD we have is the avenger, which is stinger missiles and a 50 cal. That is unsat.
What is needed is something line Skyranger or the likes.
The UH-72 has even a little bit more payload than the old UH-1. The UH-1 just offers more space but less range and speed. The UH-60 even offers just space for 11 soldiers. The UH-72 can take 9 soldiers.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest difference is the price tag:
UH-60: $21 million
UH-72: $6 million
The UH-72 was already exported to Thailand.
Mhalblaub
ReplyDeleteJapanese are looking for something closer to the Black Hawk in capacity.