Lockheed wins $3.5b f-16 deal with poland

[Mister Frag 0]

From http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,74019,00.html

Lockheed Wins $3.5B F-16 Deal With Poland

Friday, December 27, 2002

WARSAW — Poland on Friday named Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)'s F-16 Fighting Falcon the winner of a three-way tender to supply 48 combat jets in a $3.5 billion deal, eastern Europe's largest defense order.

Lockheed, with its Block 52 F-16 C/D model powered by F-100-229 engines from United Technologies (UTX) unit Pratt & Whitney, beat French and Anglo-Swedish rivals to land its first major defense order in the region.

The F-16 fought off Dassault Aviation's Mirage 2000-5 Mk 2 and the Anglo-Swedish Jas-39 Gripen, built by BAE Systems and Saab.

The deal marks a triumph for a lobbying drive led by President George W. Bush and deals a blow to Europe's aerospace industry just two weeks after the European Union invited Poland and nine other countries to join in 2004.

Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski dismissed criticism that Poland, a NATO member since 1999, had succumbed to U.S. pressure and said the best package of planes and reciprocal investments in Polish industry had won the day.

"Poland based its decision on merit, not politics," he told a news conference. "This deal guarantees our ability to participate in NATO operations and increases our security."

The F-16s will be delivered between 2006 and 2008, enabling ex-Warsaw Pact member Poland to scrap its obsolete Soviet-era planes, some of which have been in the air since the 1960s.

Lockheed, backed by a U.S. government loan which foresees only interest payments through 2010, said it won on technical and financial grounds.

"It's the entire package. I am convinced that we do have the world's best airplane, and the strength of the F-16 industrial team is its credibility in delivering on its promises," George Standridge, Lockheed's Poland campaign director, told Reuters.

Under Polish law, reciprocal investments, or "offset," must be worth at least 100 percent of a defence order. The left-wing government hopes the investments will revive stricken industry and help cut an 18 percent jobless rate.

Lockheed put together over 100 projects it valued at $9.8 billion, although Polish officials said they were worth about $6 billion.

That compared with 7.5 billion euros ($7.8 billion) from Gripen and just 3.8 billion euros ($3.9 billion) from Dassault.

"The tender was based on financing, the airplane and the offset deal, and from what I see Lockheed Martin put together a very good offer on all three," said U.S. ambassador to Warsaw Christopher Hill. "I believe the F-16 won on its merits."

Defence experts rate the F-16 and Mirage roughly equal as fighting machines, with the cheaper Gripen third, but gave the French poor marks for their offset proposal.

"I just can't understand why the French offset offer was so weak," said Krzysztof Zalewski of Poland's military aviation magazine, Lotnictwo Wojskowe.

Europe's defense lobby said the decision was bad news for cross-border defense cooperation on the continent.

"The Americans are extremely good. They use any method they can to try to kill the European aircraft industry," said Jean Wessener of the European Defence Industries Group in Brussels.

>Contracts for the planes are to be finalized and signed by the end of March 2003, conditional on wrapping up talks on the offset package within a further 60 days.

In New York, Lockheed shares were up 0.8 percent in early trading. In Europe, Saab was hardest hit, falling one percent.

The F-16 flies in nine NATO air forces and has a track record dating back to the 1970s, but Lockheed says the model it offered to Poland is the most modern flying in Europe today.

The plane is fitted with Northrop Grumman Corp radar and electronic warfare systems. Its weaponry comprises the AIM-9X air-to-air missile, the AIM-120C AMRAAM missile, Joint Stand-Off Weapon and Joint Direct Attack Munition Bombs.

Lockheed's win marks a comeback after it lost out in tenders in NATO's other new members the Czech Republic and Hungary.

The Americans beat Dassault to a South Korean order earlier this year, selling F-15s. A similar triangular contest is under way between the F-16, Mirage and Gripen in Brazil, which wants 12 planes.

"U.S. political pressure is behind this decision. Overall, we had the best offer," said Ian McNamee, head of the Gripen group. "When it comes to the future...Britain and Sweden are going to continue to assist our marketing."

[zverushka 0]

So the old MiGs are gone, eh?

[ralphwiggum 6]

i'm not sure if F-16 fixed there tail fin problem. some crashes of F-16s have been blamed on that.

[mr. Duck 0]

Do they get 'em in 2006-2008? Damn, if they waited some more years they could have bought our F-16's.

Ralph, does that tail fin problem effects all F-16's or only the A & B versions?

[Guest]

Political deal Both the Mirage and JAS are more modern planes.

Anyway, this is far from over. This was just the result of the first bidding. The Poles have the right to change their mind. Finland did that some years ago when they first chose JAS 39 Gripen but later after some political pressure went with the F-18.

Oh well, at least the Czechs are planning to go through with buying Jas (although that purchase was also delayed because of the big flooding earlier this year).

Not a very good year for Saab

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mr. Duck @ Dec. 27 2002,23:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ralph, does that tail fin problem effects all F-16's or only the A & B versions?<span id='postcolor'>

first, it's been a while since that claim/analysis was made, and if it were true, i'm pretty sure they came up with some fix for it.

the claim/analysis was that at certain instances, vibration of the tail fin coincided with a certain frequency, and thus caused weakening around the bolts. now, i'm not sure if that is true or not. my physics knowledge is limited.

so if you could get record of which F-16s crashed, then you might find some answers. sorry for not being able to help

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 27 2002,17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Political deal Both the Mirage and JAS are more modern planes.

Anyway, this is far from over. This was just the result of the first bidding. The Poles have the right to change their mind.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeppers, I agree with all that. Politics between Poland and the U.S. are pretty good, except for the immigration law changes in the recent years, the $400 that Polish citizens are charged by the US Embassy for VISAs to the US wether they get them or not does not help.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am convinced that we do have the world's best airplane......<span id='postcolor'>

Cough, cough.... The Typhoon, Gripen,and Rafale, all outclass the F16. There's only so far you can develop an existing design.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Poland based its decision on merit, not politics,"<span id='postcolor'>

And the above is the proof of that eh?

[FSPilot 0]

The F-16CJ C or D model are specifically used for the SEAD role.  So it's not very accurate to compare them with fighters that are specifically used for the air superiority role. But the difference is primarilly in avionics and armament capabilities.

If you ask me, it's stupid to compare airplanes.  If a sopwith camel was equiped with an AN/APG-66 and some AIM-120s and put up against a JSF with a set of binoculars and a pistol, the camel would win out.

[Badgerboy 0]

The Poles were looking for a multirole aircraft to take over from the motley collection of MiGs they owned, and require a decent multirole to take over all of the old A/C's taskings. The US typically use them for the SEAD role, as they are integrated with the HARM, and they are numerous.

Other countries tend to use their F16's for more diverse roles, including air defense and CAS, due to their lack of aircraft.

The Typhoon, Gripen, and Rafale, are all multirole aircraft in their own right. As a matter of fact, a Typhoon can take on the SEAD capabilites of 4 F16's. Plus the Typhoon is integrated with the ALARM, which is currently the best anti radiation missile out there.

So not only can it carry more A/A fire power than a F16, it can also carry more A/G munitions, including cruise missiles.

The Mirage and JAS are just as capable, so it's safe to assume that this WAS a political deal. (US aviation has major influence up to state level with countries)

As for the Sopwith, the bugger wouldn't get off the ground with all that kit on it! I was was the JSF pilot, I'd simply hit the deck, kill all emissions, get behind the camel, climb and rip the buggers tail off with the engine wake!

(On a sidenote, more Camel pilots died from spinning their aircraft, than being shot down in WWI. Thankfully, some nice chap cameup with the spin recovery drill shortly after...

[Denwad 0]

Lowest bidder people.

Who the HELL would pay 7.8 billion for 48 fighters?

[mr. Duck 0]

I dont think it's fair to compare the Typhoon with the Falcon. If you want to compare it then compare it with the JSF. They are from the same generation.

But yeah, the prize of the falcon could be a factor why they chose it. It's a good plane, cheap (cheaper than the Typhoon) and you can do alot of things with it.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Dec. 28 2002,06:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As a matter of fact, a Typhoon can take on the SEAD capabilites of 4 F16's. Plus the Typhoon is integrated with the ALARM, which is currently the best anti radiation missile out there.

So not only can it carry more A/A fire power than a F16, it can also carry more A/G munitions, including cruise missiles.<span id='postcolor'>

What are you talking about?

[mr. Duck 0]

He means this one:

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mr. Duck @ Dec. 28 2002,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But yeah, the prize of the falcon could be a factor why they chose it. It's a good plane, cheap (cheaper than the Typhoon) and you can do alot of things with it.<span id='postcolor'>

Not only price. Jas Gripen is the cheapest. When Austria was recently buying airplanes they chose the Typhoon (Eurofighter) although Jas was cheaper and they found the two aircraft very similar in performance. Their main reason for choosing the EF was that it was backed by three separate countries and that it in the case of war was a better guarantee that you always would have spare parts (that plus politics of course).

Unfortunately Jas doesn't stand too much chance against the Typhoon. The two aircraft are very similar in concept, design and performance. Jas is slightly cheaper but has much weaker political support.

Also one thing to be considered is the fact that the sale of military hardware always includes big industrial, commercial and political deals that come with it. As the original article said:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Under Polish law, reciprocal investments, or "offset," must be worth at least 100 percent of a defence order. The left-wing government hopes the investments will revive stricken industry and help cut an 18 percent jobless rate.

Lockheed put together over 100 projects it valued at $9.8 billion, although Polish officials said they were worth about $6 billion.

That compared with 7.5 billion euros ($7.8 billion) from Gripen and just 3.8 billion euros ($3.9 billion) from Dassault.<span id='postcolor'>

So its always: we'll buy your aircraft for 10 billion euros if you buy beer from us for 10 billion euros, or something similar. US has a very big advantage there due to its industrian strength and size.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Ain't capitalism grand?

[.40S&W 0]

Note, that we are buying 48 brand new planes, not some upgraded F16 A/Bs

Well, IMHO the F16s C/D Block 50/52 were the best choice for our Air Force.

The avionics of this version are far more modern than the ones offered by others (Grippen and Morage 2000 MK 5).

And note that Grippen at curret state is not fully compaibe with NATO standards, as Sweden is a neutral country, and moreover it hasbnever been tested in combat conditions.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (.40S&W @ Dec. 28 2002,02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The avionics of this version are far more modern than the ones offered by others (Grippen and  Morage 2000 MK 5).

.<span id='postcolor'>

This is difficult to believe since those systems are update continuously. Also both the Mirage and Jas have more and newer on-board computers, state of the art digital sensors and microcontrollers. The software is also bound to be newer.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And note that Grippen at curret state is not fully compaibe with NATO standards, as Sweden is a neutral country, and moreover it hasbnever been tested in combat conditions<span id='postcolor'>

JAS 39C Gripen is fully compatible with existing NATO standards. (source)

The second point is however valid and probably influenced the decision. In military hardware operational reliability is much more important then technical innovation. The F16 has been tested in the field, the competitors have not.

[FSPilot 0]

No offense, but I don't think someone who's trying to sell you something is the most reliable source of information.

[Guest]

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 28 2002,036)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No offense, but I don't think someone who's trying to sell you something is the most reliable source of information.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, since I know how sensitive you are about having objective proof for things, here are some more sources:

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4 (FAS)

Happy now?

Edit: Source 4 - Austrian Typhoon vs Jas comparison

[Othin 0]

Obviously I'm happy with this as an American.  I'm always glad to see business come our way.  But in a more detatched sense the whole process is interesting, we'll have to see what the final outcome is.

I think this page is pretty interesting.  It raises good questions for all sides.

[FSPilot 0]

Denoir, I was just saying that the seller is going to beef up their product some. Just look at Ebay.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 28 2002,05:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, I was just saying that the seller is going to beef up their product some.  Just look at Ebay. <span id='postcolor'>

This lampshade has the power to heal internal bleeding and cancer!

[Mister Frag 0]

Does anyone else think that the bidding and selection process for contracts of this magnitude is probably as dirty as the bidding and selection process for the Olympic games?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Dec. 28 2002,08:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Does anyone else think that the bidding and selection process for contracts of this magnitude is probably as dirty as the bidding and selection process for the Olympic games? <span id='postcolor'>

as always, yes.