Royal Norwegian Air Force news and discussion

[stigmata]

No, he meant that "over the shoulder shots" and "The F-35 won't even need to bother with maneuvering" is fantasies. Pk going to zero and F-35 going down.
But no worries, no pilot is going to use that disengenious tactic anyway.

ed: In Joint Strike Fighter chief test pilot Jon Beesley's words
"DAS is basically missile launch detectors,"
but would in my mind also dual serve to increase SA when flying clandestine ops in hostile environment.
Not a wunderwaffe but an incremental early warning improvement.
Should also be useful for night flying.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article1591.html

I don't believe DAS will have zoom capability anywhere near IRST as it would defeat the whole purpose of 360 degree MAWS. (XAWS in my interpretation). It has been mentioned several times that when you zoom in with IRST, you cover a very small volume.

 

[Grand Danois]

I agree a Gripen NG is overkill, their F-16 would do it if it wasn't for ageing and increasing maintenance.
I didn't get the point with Georgia.
Peace.

Korean War is an example. The US had divested their conventional forces in the belief that nuclear weapons would make future wars binary events. The fact that US had nuclear weapons did dot dissuade the Chinese from entering the war.

Looking back at the war in Georgia this fall, it seems possible to me that a short squadron of F-16s would have been able to have an effect on that war. PGMs bottling up the Loki tunnel, providing air cover for ground forces. Cruise missiles and bombs didn't wipe out the Georgian air force on the ground - many were shot down in combat.

The Russians don't now, and won't for decades, have overwhelming numbers of cruise missiles and advanced frontline jets. Not enough to cover their "needs." They will have a very hard time to recapitalize inventory.

So a "few" jets matter.

It's also about psychology. Showing the willingness to invest in defence tells your allies that you're prepared to fight and it is thus much more attractive to the allies to come to your aid. It also means that your nation has something to help out with if others in the alliance are attacked.

Another aspect of psychology is that if Russia feels that they have the upper hand in the e.g. the Barents Sea, they're more tempted to act belligerently.

Which is why I roll my eyeballs when told that air policing is about being seen. It's about telling the other guy that he's screwed if he messes with you.

Anyway, I like the Gripen and the NG. There are some very savvy engineers and technicians working on it. They work hard at making the best with the money they have and are good at cooperating with a lot of foreign defence and research enterprises to make a fine contemporary fighter.

I do think the Gripen NG is out of sync with the Norwegian timeframe 2016-2050. If it had been 2008-2040... Asking for that last decade is asking a lot from it. If there perhaps was a clear path for UCAVs and the preparedness to spend more money in the future, say a MLU, then it could make it look better.

But the F-35 already have those bases covered and looks more like the best long term safe bet to me.

There are contracts out there that I think the Gripen will pick up, or has a very good chance at picking up.

That's my 2 cents on this topic.

 

[Grand Danois]

I didn't quite get that. If you shoot a missile that goes widely off-boresight, the decreased Pk does not matter?

Or is the point that one will in practice never fire a missile with a huge off-boresight?

Or something else?

V

(Sorry to ask these stupid questions, GD has always something interesting to say but sometimes too cryptic for laypersons like me...)

The reason why I am sometimes cryptic is because I am often hurriedly typing replies in a foreign language botching the meaning of what I try to write.

What I tried to say was that the action happens in the frontal part of the hemisphere of the aircraft, which is why the over-the-shoulder shot will be rare and the low Pks of such shots is of lesser relevance. This was the most important point.

Firing such a shot will typically be in a situation where your jet is being chased or your pursuer is turning to chase you (lest he also has HOBS), which will mean that much of effect of the forward motion imparted on the missile is neutralized.

Does it matter with that kind of over-the-shoulder shots? IMV WVR fights are bloody murder to everyone and not controlled events. So who knows. Perhaps not.

 

[Grand Danois]

ed: In Joint Strike Fighter chief test pilot Jon Beesley's words
"DAS is basically missile launch detectors,"
but would in my mind also dual serve to increase SA when flying clandestine ops in hostile environment.
Not a wunderwaffe but an incremental early warning inprovement.
Should also be useful for night flying.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article1591.html

Beesley is in conversational mode in an interview. This is exactly an example of quote usage that I don't like. It runs contrary to capabilites identified and verified by the R&D community and which has been pursued objectives in the programme. Indications are that they will be met.

I don't believe DAS will have zoom capability anywhere near IRST as it would defeat the whole purpose of 360 degree MAWS. (XAWS in my interpretation). It has been mentioned several times that when you zoom in with IRST, you cover a very small volume.

Agreed wrt long-range IRST capabilites of the DAS.

 

[stigmata]

Another aspect of psychology is that if Russia feels that they have the upper hand in the e.g. the Barents Sea, they're more tempted to act belligerently.

This is the one area that might get hot, especially if USA decide to repudiate debt, - i wonder if NATO would fall apart in that case.
Norway is not a member of EU either, so it doesn't have any backup plan.

Beesley is in conversational mode in an interview. This is exactly an example of the usage of quotes that I don't like. It runs contrary to capabilites identified and verified by the R&D community and which has been pursued objectives in the programme. Indications are that they will be met.

I happen to like the DAS, its a nifty thing, it was more to get a more balanced expectation on what it brings.

 

[Grand Danois]

I happen to like the DAS, its a nifty thing, it was more to get a more balanced expectation on what it brings.

It is going to be able to cue missiles inside the WVR envelope. Going with the "minimal quote" that can be googled up isn't evidence to the contrary.

 

[stigmata]

It is going to be able to cue missiles inside the WVR envelope. Going with the "minimal quote" that can be googled up isn't evidence to the contrary.

Something like N012 rear radar on Su-27 family then, tho N012 is also used as mid cource updates for BVR missiles.

 

[Dalregementet]

Sweden is increasing the stakes

The Swedish defence minister today announced a deeper military cooperation between all nordic countries but with Norway in particular (the Swedish/Finnish cooperation is already as deep as it can be without actually merging the defence forces which by the way is starting to happen).

He also states that Sweden will participate in the defence of it´s nordic neighbours mentioning russias increasing interest in the barent region.... and that Sweden also expects help if needed.

Within a week, a report about deeper Nordic defence cooperation will be presented... author... the father of the present Norwegian prime minister, Thorval Stoltenberg.

Via Norway, Sweden has now joined the Nato Nordic air situation pictiure...

He ends the article by stating that a membership in Nato is not on the agenda this election period... which means that it is on the next oine...

I think that was a strong political push regarding the coming decision about which aircraft Norway will choose.


http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=572&a=853640

 

[gf0012-aust]

Via Norway, Sweden has now joined the Nato Nordic air situation pictiure...

It wasn't via Norway. The US invited Finland, Norway and Sweden out of the Nordic countries for stage 1. The others are in Stage 2.

The US is the convenor of the common operating picture for that battlespace.

That came out of a briefing today - it was initiated early last year by the US.

So, Norway is part of Stage 1, but they don't have the authority to ask Sweden to join - that was via the USG.

The bigger question is that it now raises the issue of Swedens neutrality - as it's clearly shifting. They're asking for more and more access into US developed comms theatre systems. (the big one is a 7 year development)

 

[Dalregementet]

The big thing today in Norway regarding the fighter procurement is a speculation that JSF may never be built due to the finacial crisis, the US need the money on other secors, and that the US defence might not need it at all? The source behind this is Jon Bingen, director for the Norvegian Institute for Strategic studies. Many norwegian news sources write about it and I just took one example - the Norvegian public TV, as a reference.

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/1.6315247

 

[Grand Danois]

The big thing today in Norway regarding the fighter procurement is a speculation that JSF may never be built due to the finacial crisis, the US
need the money on other secors, and that the US defence might not need it at all? The source behind this is Jon Bingen, director for the Norvegian Institute for Strategic studies. Well true or false - many norwegian news sources write about it and I just took one example - the Norvegian public TV, as a reference.

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/1.6315247

Bingen has absolutely no economical sense - JSF is exactly the type of expenditure you can afford in a recessionist economy.

JSF is also cheaper than the Rafale and EF. He only thinks it is more expensive.

EF was the plane that was built for the 1980's European battlefield, so wrong again.

There are so many people who are going to wish they had not say the things they have, in a couple of years.

Particularly that ex-fighter-jock working for Norwegian.

 

[Vivendi]

Bingen has absolutely no economical sense - JSF is exactly the type of expenditure you can afford in a recessionist economy.

JSF is also cheaper than the Rafale and EF. He only thinks it is more expensive.

EF was the plane that was built for the 1980's European battlefield, so wrong again.

There are so many people who are going to wish they had not say the things they have, in a couple of years.

Particularly that ex-fighter-jock working for Norwegian.

People that are debating this on Norwegian forums tend to laugh at Bingen. Clearly he has an agenda, and buying Norwegian F-35is not on that agenda. His arguments make no sense, but should be viewed for what it is: A (IMHO, rather poor) attempt at influenzing the Norwegian opinion. I don't think it's going to work since the debates about this are quite intense in Norway, I think he underestimates the knowledge level of Norwegian voters

Anyway, another "analyst" already commented on Bingens statements:

http://www.nettavisen.no/verden/article2408247.ece

Basically he says he thinks Bingen is wrong and that F-35 will not be cancelled. He suggests that the numbers may be somewhat reduced, though.


V

 

[Vivendi]

Norway buys F-35

This just in:

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/smk/Pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2008/gar-inn-for-joint-strike-fighter.html?id=537010

Google translate:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.regjeringen.no%2Fnb%2Fdep%2Fsmk%2FPressesenter%2Fpressemeldinger%2F2008%2Fgar-inn-for-joint-strike-fighter.html%3Fid%3D537010&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=no&tl=en

So it's official: Norway will get F-35!


Best regards,


Vivendi

 

[Todjaeger]

This just in:

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/smk/Pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2008/gar-inn-for-joint-strike-fighter.html?id=537010

Google translate:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.regjeringen.no%2Fnb%2Fdep%2Fsmk%2FPressesenter%2Fpressemeldinger%2F2008%2Fgar-inn-for-joint-strike-fighter.html%3Fid%3D537010&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=no&tl=en

So it's official: Norway will get F-35!


Best regards,


Vivendi

Interesting... I read the translated version. I do agree that the F-35 should be more capable than the Gripen NG. What I am less sure of is that the estimated cost for the F-35 being some 6 billion ($US, krone?) less than that of the Gripen. If someone who is fluent in Norweigan could just double check and confirm that, it would be great. Sorry, only fluent in American and sort-of fluent in English...

-Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

You can read their conclusions on cost in this document page 40 (in Norwegian):

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Temadokumenter/Fremtidig-kampflykapasitet_anbefaling_311008.pdf

48 jets:
Gripen NG fly-away 24 billion NOK (they added 4 billion NOK to the Gripen to make it multirole).
F-35A fly-away 18 billion NOK.

Total Cost of Ownership, 30 years, 56 JSF is 145 billion NOK, which is 20-30 billion less than Gripen NG. That's 1 billion USD.

Analysen for Gripen NG viser at et kostnadsbilde for de identifiserbare kostnadselementene er 20-30 milliarder kroner dyrere enn JSF i et 30-års levetidsperspektiv.

The numbers in the table above this quote (tabell 2.) indicate that they calculate there is a 15% chance of a JSF cost overrun of more than 20 billion NOK.

I must admit I'm quite puzzled that the F-35A should be cheaper.

 

[kato]

53 million US Dollar flyaway cost for F-35A? (current exchange rate)

I would suspect they were using outdated LM cost projections? Cuz that number should roughly match what LM projected in 2001 (!) for F-35A (47m), perhaps adjusted for inflation/exchange rate only.

Edit: It's not the 2001 exchange rate btw. That would put the cost projection for 48 F-35A at 20.5 billion NOK back then.

 

[Haavarla]

You can read their conclusions on cost in this document page 40 (in Norwegian):

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Temadokumenter/Fremtidig-kampflykapasitet_anbefaling_311008.pdf

48 jets:
Gripen NG fly-away 24 billion NOK (they added 4 billion NOK to the Gripen to make it multirole).
F-35A fly-away 18 billion NOK.

Total Cost of Ownership, 30 years, 56 JSF is 145 billion NOK, which is 20-30 billion less than Gripen NG. That's 1 billion USD.

Analysen for Gripen NG viser at et kostnadsbilde for de identifiserbare kostnadselementene er 20-30 milliarder kroner dyrere enn JSF i et 30-års levetidsperspektiv.

I must admit I'm quite puzzled that the F-35A should be cheaper.

Yeah, eighter SAAB didn't do their homework properly in the bidding round or/and RNAF get a somewhat cheaper JSF(light) package than the F-35A USAF package.

I always was i bit skeptical about the cost on the JSF, but this is good news indeed.
Let's hope the figures here dosen't change that much forward to 2016.

 

[Grand Danois]

I always was i bit skeptical about the cost on the JSF, but this is good news indeed.
Let's hope the figures here dosen't change that much forward to 2016.

They've calculated that the risk of a cost overrun of more than 20 billion NOK is 15%. I've added this to my other post.

Apparently the basic Gripen NG jet was a lite version, which is why they added those extra 4 billion NOK. At least I can't think of any other reason...

 

[karan583]

Yeah, eighter SAAB didn't do their homework properly in the bidding round or/and RNAF get a somewhat cheaper JSF(light) package than the F-35A USAF package.

I always was i bit skeptical about the cost on the JSF, but this is good news indeed.
Let's hope the figures here dosen't change that much forward to 2016.

There was an article in AW&ST today regarding the F-22. It had a small section at the bottom regarding the F-35 cost.

In comparison, 16 F-35A/B/Cs in the 2009 budget will cost $237 million each. In 2010, 12 F-35A will cost $203.1 million each and 18 F-35B/Cs will cost $198.1 million apiece. For unit costs over the total program in then-year dollars, 1,763 F-35As will cost $96.8 million per aircraft, while the 680 F-35B/Cs come in at $122.6 million.

Link to article

I'm no expert on "then-year dollars", perhaps someone here might straighten it out, but it sounds like Norway got a sweet deal (or they'll be ripped off later on when it comes to spares and mx)

 

[longbow]

GD - The conclusions of "Fremtidig kampflykapasitet" stipulates that the aqusition costs for Gripen NG should be 20 bn NOK, but that we would have to spend an aditional 4 bn nok to bring the Gripen up to full "multirollekampfly"(translates to something like full multirole capacity). Ie. pods and stuff.

For those who are norwegianspeaking:
"For Gripen NG er ca. 20 av 24 milliarder 2008-kroner fastpris gitt i RBI-besvarelsen. De resterende 4 milliarder 2008-kronene for Gripen NG er tilleggskostnader som er helt nødvendig utstyr for at flyet skal være et multirollekampfly i henhold til NATO-standard og -krav."