Temptations in selecting jet fighters

The Korea Herald, Asia News Network, Seoul

Like most multibillion-dollar projects, the selection process for the nation's next-generation fighters is getting knottier -- and nastier -- everyday. Foreign contractors and their local agents indirectly accuse one another as illegal lobbyists and rumormongers. Backbiting and declaration of conscience are rampant among Korean appraisers, split between the procurers and pilots as well as seniors and juniors.

On Tuesday, the local agent of France's Dassault Aviation reportedly admitted to giving US$8,400 to an air force colonel, one of the key evaluators. Military prosecutors said the officer, known by his surname of Cho, offered advice on price and other assessment guidelines. Dassault officials said the money was just a business practice with no strings attached, countering Cho's arrest as a "manipulation" to spoil the French firm's chances. Paris plans to send its defense minister to Seoul soon for the $3.2-billion, 40-aircraft business.

Dassault's eleventh-hour struggle pales beside the earlier promotion by American officials of Boeing Co. Involved in the lobbying were key administrative and Congressional leaders, including state and defense secretaries.

The all-out U.S. lobbying, however, may reflect their inward nervousness with the objective comparison of four contenders -- the Boeing F-15K, Dassault's Rafale, the European consortium's Eurofighter Typhoon and Russian Sukhoi's SU-35. Among them, Rafale is said to perform better and be cheaper than the F-15K, while more generous in technology transfer, too. F-15K is also nearing the end of its useful life with little new production schedule.

Still, officials at the Defense Ministry are busy "defending" the Boeing product. They seem to be saying what Korea needs is not the best but the most suitable fighter for Korea's level.

Instead, these officials emphasize such factors as interoperability with the existing weapons system, almost 90 percent of which came from the United States. We do not have the technical expertise in complex procurement mechanisms, nor war strategy. However, as long as the arms purchase is a business deal of sorts, which factors could weigh more than quality, price and core know-how? Are these officials saying Korea has to buy its protector's products under any circumstances?

Col. Cho's taped testimony of the hidden stories behind the entire process unveiled Tuesday, if proved to be true, could justify part of these doubts. In the tape, Cho relates the top procurement official's alleged comment on possible U.S. troop withdrawal in case the F-15K loses the bid. There were also orders from above to delete assessments unfavorable to Boeing product in a report to the parliament. A former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hinted the actual decision had long been made.

The Defense Department officials as a matter of course denied all of these allegations. We do not know yet which side is right and which is wrong. Nor should we jump to a conclusion they even speak for rivaling contractors, with or without bribery. The conflicts might just be a matter of which aircraft they prefer -- one with a proven track record and the other with potential superiority. It also may reflect different priorities between immediate strengthening of defense capability and longer-term promotion of self-reliant national security.

We understand in part why the officials had to revise -- or devise from the outset as they say -- the evaluation criteria and calculation method in ways to benefit the U.S. company eventually. With 37,000 U.S. soldiers stationed here, Washington deserves some special treatment if other conditions are similar. But the importance of military alliance between the two countries should not force us to swallow unilaterally unfavorable terms, also prevalent in such auxiliary areas as parts supply and body disassembly for maintenance.

The first stage of quantitative appraisal will be over this week. If the gap among suppliers remains less than 3 percentage points, the second-stage, qualitative evaluation will mainly consider the diplomatic and military relationship by March 29. It would be difficult to maintain and explain objectivity in the latter. So, the process would rather be completed at the first stage. Officials are swearing their fairness and transparency to the people and history. We will know only if there are no parliamentary hearings in the next government.