Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?

[Arion]

Check out the gripen webpage!

In 25 hours we will see more of what is going to be offered to Norway (and Denmark etc.)

They describe it like "the aviation event of the decade"

 

[KiwiRob]

The latest news from Norway is that the Finance Minister is looking into upgrading the F16's instead of purchasing new planes if the upgrade will give the required functionality.

Personally I would rather the govt spent my tax on new roads, hospitals and schools instead of wasting it on expensive fighters which like the current F16's will never be used in anger. If upgrading the current fleet is cost effective than I'm all for it.

 

[Sea Toby]

And this is what will cause a fighter gap of 800 or more aircraft between 2017 and 2024. So the USAF is now doing a study to see how many F-15s and F-16s they are going to keep until the F-35 can replace them.

As for the Democrats in Congress, people don't realize that their the ones who want more F-22 orders. Its the pentagon with Robert Gates and Gordon England who are the ones that want to cap F-22 production at only 183 fighters. The Democrats and Republicans in Congress along with the USAF have tried to convince the Pentagon to allow more F-22 orders but the Pentagon just says a stuborn no without even looking into the possibility.:coffee

I don't know why the Democrats have the sterotype of being weak on defense even though they have in fact voted to increase defense spending and put more funding into the defense budget then what President Bush has asked for.

Have you ever checked out David Obey's website? He represents the rank and file of the Democratic party. When the Democrats control the Congress, ever since the LBJ administration defense spending loses to inflation or barely holds the line. Its during a Republican controlled Congress that defense spending stays above inflation. While the White House matters, its the Congress that holds the keys to the money.

One of the things during the last Democratic Congress held by the Democrats was to pass the Obey amendment to not sell Raptors abroad. Obey and the Democrats wished to kill the Raptor program internally and externally. Look up the tallies of that vote.... Oh, the House passed it on a voice vote. http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-3625:1

You will discover with a few exceptions that the rank and file Democrats passed that amendment with a party line vote. The goal was to kill the program, although the Democrats spun it to keep the Raptor stealth secrets. As far as stealth secrets, the Lightning II program reveals that falsehood. The truth was the Democrats not only killed the program internally, they killed it so that it wouldn't come back externally. Believe it or not.....

The Republican administration after that vote, gave up that ghost, moving ahead with the Lightning II program. It is a telling amendment, not once has the arsenal of democracy withheld any weapons to its allies before, except for nukes.

 

[RA1911]

LM and SAAB gave their offers to the Norwegian government today. (http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politikk/article2394960.ece)

It's in norwegian, but highlights are:

Tom Burbage is qouted as saying that "The only thing I can say is that our offer is at less than 20mrd NOK" (current exchange ratio gives less than 4.000.000.000 USD for 48 planes) and that the maintenance cost is 20% lower than the F-16.

SAAB is quoted as saying that they have "identified possibilities for contracts to norwegian industry of 24mrd NOK, which is more than 100% of the contract value".

This means that the F-35 and the Gripen will cost about the same to purchase. For those who understand norwegian the forum at the bottom of the page is funny or depressive reading depending on how you look at it. As usual the norwegian public generally have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Grand Danois]

[poorly hidden smugness]

Btw, noted that wpn sys unit cost plus initial spares arrive at 97.4 mn usd over the entire program. This should be very close to an AUPC, which would normally include initial spares and services for the first two-three years. This AUPC include the cost of LRIPs. Post 2014 the "AUPC" is 93.6 mn usd, meaning that Norway could get 48 F-35A for 4.5 bn usd.

The Gripen offer for Denmark was for 48 Gripen plus 20 years of spares and support for 3 bn eur (4.7 bn usd, but exchange rates are not representative at the moment).

My 4.5 bn usd est. included initial spares & services (c. 400 mn usd).... the "below 4 bn usd offer" apparently doesn't. Pretty close. That the F-35A maint cost should be below 20% of an F-16 was already known.

So, eh... the hugely expensive Lightning II? I think not.[/poorly hidden smugness]

 

[Sintra]

[poorly hidden smugness]



My 4.5 bn usd est. included initial spares & services (c. 400 mn usd).... the "below 4 bn usd offer" apparently doesn't. Pretty close. That the F-35A maint cost should be below 20% of an F-16 was already known.

So, eh... the hugely expensive Lightning II? I think not.[/poorly hidden smugness]

Now the great question his "Mr Tom Burbage are you prepared to put those number´s in fixed cost contract"?
The answer will be "NO".

 

[swerve]

Now the great question his "Mr Tom Burbage are you prepared to put those number´s in fixed cost contract"?
The answer will be "NO".

The answer will actually be "We'll be happy to sign a contract giving definite prices at the appropriate time". But that means "NO". LM, when pressed, says the prices will be fixed 3 years before delivery, IIRC, so if you want delivery in 2016 your price will be set in 2013.

 

[Grand Danois]

Now the great question his "Mr Tom Burbage are you prepared to put those number´s in fixed cost contract"?
The answer will be "NO".

Yet these are the ballpark numbers that are likely to stand at the end of the day....

Do you think SAAB is prepared to put pen to paper that they can deliver a 20 yr life cycle cost (including "matching" the EO of the F-35) that is half the LFC of the F-35?

The answer would be "NO".

IMO it seems that the F-35 is 33% more expensive than a Gripen NG over a 20 yr life cycle, ie the customer saves 25%. Of course dependent on so many things. particularly exchange rates these days.

OTOH the offsets I've seen from SAAB actually look very attractive.

 

[Grand Danois]

The answer will actually be "We'll be happy to sign a contract giving definite prices at the appropriate time". But that means "NO". LM, when pressed, says the prices will be fixed 3 years before delivery, IIRC, so if you want delivery in 2016 your price will be set in 2013.

Btw, it seems like LM has given either the WSC or the UFC (incl the URC) for this one. They probably need more experience with maint before predicting life cycle cost...

 

[Sintra]

I was going to edit my first answer to "Grand Danois" but it seem´s that this thread his on "high speed".

Now the great question his "Mr Tom Burbage are you prepared to put those number´s in fixed cost contract"?
The answer will be "NO" (unlike SAAB).

Until the contract for the Normal production Lightning´s (post 2014) his signed with the Pentagon, the only costs that Lockheed Martin can provide/sign are the LRIP ones, they are forbiden by law to deliver combat equipment at lower costs to foreign powers...
I could be wrong, but to be honest, the Norwegian defense minister isn´t expecting a "fixed cost" number on those documents either.

Defense Minister Ann-Grete Strom-Erichsen, speaking to Aviation Week & Space Technology at the roll-out, says a life-extension for the F-16 is still in the cards, but that the choice of a new aircraft would not be delayed.

Strom-Erichsen says Norway intends to ask tough questions before committing to any no-fixed-price JSF offer. “We don’t expect to find a price in there, and we expect that we’ll ask for more information.”

(h)ttp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/GRIPEN042508.xml&headline=Swedish%20Fighter%20Prototype%20Addresses%20Propulsion%20and%20Evaluates%20AESA

I will believe that a 13 ton´s LO strike fighter equiped with an AESA will be cheaper to acquire AND TO MAINTAIN than the "run of the mill" F-16 Block 50 equiped with the "old" mechanical AN/APG-68(V9) when i see a fixed cost contract signed, until then...

What Mr Tom Burbage did in Norway his called Marketing, he´s been doing precisely THAT for the last three year´s.

But if i´m wrong, that´s dam good news for the nine partner´s and the entire NATO. And buy the F-35A NOW.


Grand Danois

On another matter, you were completly correct, i misread the USAF budget, the Non recurring cost´s are part of the F-35A "Unit Cost".
But that remind me of something, on the MOU signed by the nine partners, Chapter 19, it´s quite clear that all of them, and not just the USA must pay those costs, or at least part of them, specifically the construction and termination of the assembly line.
Also, i´ve went to the F-22 RAPTOR number´s for the non-recurring-costs for the last seven years, and got an 8% percentage for those same costs for the entire fleet. On the long run it´s expectable that those costs for the Lightning fleet will be even lower due to the massive number of units.
About the 48 units year, oh boy, it seem´s that my googling it´s not better than yours. I´ve read the document almost a year ago, my atention was caught by an "ARES" article. Now when i went in search to the Congress site i got 900+ entries on "JSF"... In my defense all i can say his that a lot of people are using that number (48 units/Year), from Bill Sweetman, to Eric Palmer, to the Pentagon itself, but i couldn´t find the Bloo... document...
Sorry, i might have misread something.

And thank´s for reading such a dreadfull "clubing" of poor old Shakespeare language... hwell

 

[swerve]

Btw, it seems like LM has given either the WSC or the UFC (incl the URC) for this one. They probably need more experience with maint before predicting life cycle cost...

Actually, they're refusing to commit themselves to any price in advance, not just a life cycle cost. AFAIK all LMs offered prices are merely indicative & conditional, with LM reserving the right to change them up to a certain date. They don't talk about it much, & try hard to avoid answering questions about it from the press.

As I understand it, LM can't commit themselves to a price, because their (& the Pentagons) cost predictions have too many as-yet untested assumptions built in. They're predicting that they'll be able to do things they don't yet know how to do. Obviously, they aren't really sure they will be able to do them, despite their public optimism, & the degree of uncertainty in their internal predictions is too great for them to feel able to commit to the price they're aiming at. But committing to a price high enough for them to feel safe with would reveal just how great their uncertainty is, which would get congress-critters all excited, & might even threaten the programme.

Saab, Eurofighter & Dassault don't have the same problem, because they already know their manufacturing costs, can predict with a good degree of confidence how fast they can improve them, & the incremental improvements they plan have a far lesser range of cost uncertainty than what LM (which hasn't yet completed a single production-representative F-35, let alone built any using series production methods) is trying to do. Therefore, they can offer fixed prices far more safely. They're in the same position as Boeing is with F-15 & F-18, & LM with F-16 & F-22.

What baffles me is that people accept F-35 cost predictions as if they are hard numbers.

BTW, none of this implies dishonesty by LM. I'm sure they think their price is possible, & they're trying hard to reach it. They're just not sure if they can.

 

[Grand Danois]

I was going to edit my first answer to "Grand Danois" but it seem´s that this thread his on "high speed".

It seems so.

Until the contract for the Normal production Lightning´s (post 2014) his signed with the Pentagon, the only costs that Lockheed Martin can provide/sign are the LRIP ones, they are forbiden by law to deliver combat equipment at lower costs to foreign powers...

The partners have ownership of the F-35, sales doesn't go through FMS. But may also be why no binding prices are given.

COLOR="Red"](h)[/COLOR]ttp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/GRIPEN042508.xml&headline=Swedish%20Fighter%20Prototype%20Addresses%20Propulsion%20and%20Evaluates%20AESA
I will believe that a 13 ton´s LO strike fighter equiped with an AESA will be cheaper to acquire AND TO MAINTAIN than the "run of the mill" F-16 Block 50 equiped with the "old" mechanical AN/APG-68(V9) when i see a fixed cost contract signed, until then...

I'd think so too.

What Mr Tom Burbage did in Norway his called Marketing, he´s been doing precisely THAT for the last three year´s.

Same as SAAB. And some of what they say really hit a nerve with with me (like APA does, not that they are in same category).

On another matter, you were completly correct, i misread the USAF budget, the Non recurring cost´s are part of the F-35A "Unit Cost".

And I was to fast on the trigger when I said the costings included all three variants. Sometimes things move fast.

But that remind me of something, on the MOU signed by the nine partners, Chapter 19, it´s quite clear that all of them, and not just the USA must pay those costs, or at least part of them, specifically the construction and termination of the assembly line.

To a partner like Norway, this cost is effectively shouldered by US and UK (perhaps Italy).

About the 48 units year, oh boy, it seem´s that my googling it´s not better than yours. I´ve read the document almost a year ago, my atention was caught by an "ARES" article. Now when i went in search to the Congress site i got 900+ entries on "JSF"... In my defense all i can say his that a lot of people are using that number (48 units/Year), from Bill Sweetman, to Eric Palmer, to the Pentagon itself, but i couldn´t find the Bloo... document...
Sorry, i might have misread something.

And thank´s for reading such a dreadfull "clubing" of poor old Shakespeare language... hwell

You're welcome. perhaps someone else can enlightning us on the 48 jets/yr cap. Is it real or not?

 

[Grand Danois]

What baffles me is that people accept F-35 cost predictions as if they are hard numbers.

1) I'm aware of the RFI situation.

2) From my vantage point the F-35A seem very mature and de-risked now. Not hard numbers, I just don't expect them to shift much. Actual cost overruns so far has primarily come from cut in numbers (unit cost) and rise in cost of external services and materials, ie the project itself is tightly run.

 

[Grand Danois]

In other news today: Denmark and Norway have superficially looked into SLEPing their F-16 fleets. Initial findings were that another 2000hrs/10yrs could be pulled out of the airframes (the danish F-16s were designed for 8000hrs, but will only make 6-7000hrs due to heavy loadout - too much a-g).

Such a SLEP seems to be ruled out now by Norway today.

 

[JHC]

you can always borrow a couple of gripen, we dont even have money to let every pilot fly them, alot of planes on the ground

 

[Salty Dog]

This pretty much confirms a run-off between the F-35 Lightning II and JAS Gripen:

Request for Binding Information - Combat Aircraft

(Source: Norwegian Ministry of Defence; issued April 28, 2008)

Statement by Minister of Defence Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen during an April 28 press conference in Oslo:


Minister, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen;

It is a great pleasure for me to welcome you to this presentation. We have come a long way in our process of procuring a future combat aircraft capability. Today is an important milestone for us. With the reception of the answers to our Request for Binding Information we are now able to start the final analysis- and evaluation process, which brings us one step closer to our goal – deciding the most suitable combat aircraft for Norway.

Since taking office in October 2005, this Government has made dedicated efforts to ensure that this is a fair, transparent and credible competition. I think we have succeeded so far. The confirmation of this is what we can see here today. Two very capable candidates, with their respective Governments and industries behind them, are contending in this competition, and have made a tremendous effort answering our request. It’s very impressive what these two candidates have accomplished in such a short time.

Background

We need a combat aircraft that can meet the particular requirements of a country where few people live on a large territory, with vast sea areas to look after, and with many of its key interests related to the security developments in the high north. Norway has several security concerns and requirements that it shares with its allies and partners, but also some that we may have to look after ourselves, which means that we need to make our own calculus of what is the best choice for Norway.

No military system can beat the combat aircraft in swiftness and immediate deployability and power projection, and we consider it as a key component of a future-oriented, robust, and network-based Norwegian armed force. Modern combat aircraft should work with other air, sea and land forces and be able to provide defensive and offensive counter air, air interdiction, surveillance, and support to naval as well as ground troops, which is why only multi-role or swing role aircraft are relevant contenders in our case.

Unlike larger countries, Norway cannot afford the luxury of having various types of combat aircraft for different purposes. The costs would be too high and the fleet too small for such an option. Furthermore, in some of the security-policy scenarios that we are looking at, air superiority can not be taken as a given, which again means that the package of capacities contained in the combat aircraft itself are even more important than in larger systems where the individual aircraft is but one of many systems working together.

Combat aircraft are essential to Norway’s defence today and well into the foreseeable future, and the Government has made it abundantly clear that we do want to keep this crucially important capacity in our defence structure well beyond the life-span of our current F-16s. This decision was taken by the Norwegian Government in December 2006 through its approval of the document referred to as the Conceptual Solution.

In the spring of 2007, we signed a new set of agreements with both the Governments and industry of the three different candidates. This was essential in order to obtain necessary information about the candidates, and at the same time make Norwegian industry more competitive and more involved in the development of all the candidates. Judging from some of the industrial cooperation agreements already underway, I think we can already conclude that this was money well spent.

Then, at the beginning of this year, we sent our Request for Binding Information to all the candidates. The reply date specified in the RBI was 28 April, which, again, is why we are gathered here today.

When making our judgement based on these RBI replies, our primary focus will be on identifying the contender that best meets our Norwegian military requirements at the best possible price.

With price, I do not only refer to the price at the day of purchase, but also the entire life-cycle cost as well as the potential for cost-effective solutions for international co-operation. Furthermore, the “price” of a military aircraft is not comparable to the price of a car in the consumer market. Our experts will also go into the fine print and evaluate the assumptions under which the price offers are made. For instance, to which extent they presuppose overall production numbers and other assumptions that neither we nor the contender can fully control.

Beyond this obvious number one priority, my Government put great emphasis on the importance of ensuring a high level of industrial participation for the Norwegian defence- and security related industry. We believe that strong partnerships between Governments and industry, in a 21st century mode, are very important in this large and strategically important sector.

We have very positive experiences with previous industrial offset packages – for instance in the case of the F-16 programme and with the very successful Frigate purchase from Spain’s Navantia. The question here is not the label put on the industrial component – “classical offset” or “best value industrial participation” – but what it delivers in quality and quantity to Norwegian industry.

It should be remembered that in the years during which we will pay for the new combat aircraft, this will bind such a large proportion of our investment budget that without sound industrial participation, Norwegian defence and security industry will have few opportunities in their interaction with us and, together, for positioning itself on the global market. In a country largely living on the export of fossil fuels, this would not be a sound strategy for the future transformation and further modernization of our technology-intensive industry.

Competition

As I said at the outset, I do feel that we have succeeded in making this a fair and credible competition. While I am not going to enter into any kind of judgment or evaluation between the candidates here and now, we do know enough to say that both the candidates represented here today – F-35 Lightning II and JAS Gripen – are highly capable and potentially very good candidates for Norway’s future needs.

Genuine competition was not a given, since our history with one of the candidates present here dates back much longer than with the other, and since not only the proposed aircraft themselves, but also the cooperation and procurement programmes, are so different in character. Hence, balance can not be achieved by formal equal treatment alone, but by a deliberate strategy of equality of result.

We have seen it in the best interest of Norway to take active steps to level the playing field and to take a long-term balanced approach. It means that we need to compare apples and pears in a transparent and intelligent way. The more genuine the competition is, the fairer is the process for the contender and, we assume, the better is the final offer to us.

It is with regret I must conclude that Eurofighter has decided not to respond to our request, and that Eurofighter, by implication, no longer is a part of this competition.

With two impressive candidates remaining in the competition, I am convinced that we will get a good competition as we enter into the final leg of the race,. We will choose the best aircraft for our needs, and hopefully we will also benefit from the competition -- price down and the quality up.

To be able to make this decision early is actually a privilege, because it gives ample time both for the final set of negotiations, for preparing the Air Force and its logistics support organization for optimal phasing out of the old fleet and phasing in of the new fleet, and for ensuring substantial Norwegian industrial contributions at a time while the doors are still open. I am therefore convinced that we are right in sticking to the demanding timeline we decided upon a few years ago.

Let me also reiterate – yet again – the emphasis this Government places on ensuring a transparent process reflecting high ethical standards in all aspects of the relationship between the contenders and representatives of the public sector, be it in the Armed Forces, in the relevant Ministries, or Parliament. This is a policy that will be strictly enforced throughout the process. I would also like to emphasize that it is my hope that this also will hold true for the broader environment involved, including in the media. Experiences from other countries and other processes underlines that clear procedures and a high degree of consciousness about these aspects is crucially important.

The Road ahead

Towards the end, let me say a few words about the road ahead. There has been some confusion in the press lately, which is why The Norwegian Government decided last year that it is no longer a separate option simply to prolong the lifetime of our existing F-16 fleet. Our approach now, and my order to the Program is: Find the optimal point in time to phase out the existing F-16 fleet, and to phase in a new fleet of combat aircraft. The estimate so far is that the optimal point in time is some where between 2016 and 2020. But this is not concluded. This is one of many important issues the Program has to look into the next months.

I would also like to be very clear on one point to all in this room; neither I nor the Program, nor other people, will comment on data or specifications given to us by the two competitors through their respective RBI-responses here today. As I have said, we will now start our evaluation process and such a process is going to take some time. I therefore hope you will accept that we can not come with any advance results at this stage.

I now look forward to hear the presentations from the two very able contenders.

 

[Vivendi]

A researcher from NUPI (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs) said in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten April 29 that he believes Sweden has a much bigger chance to succed this time, when comparing to the situation when the Swedish Viggen was competing against the F16 years ago.

I agree with this. Actually I think the most likely outcome will be Gripen not JSF. The reasons why I believe this:

The current Norwegian government consist of a coalition of three parties:

The norwegian labour party (AP); classical scandinavian social democratic party; often critical to US foreign politics however during the cold war they accepted the global political situation and was fully supportive of NATO membership and close defence ties with the US.

The "centre party" (SP); also known as the "farmer's party" in Norway. They focus mainly on domestic politics, in particular support to rural areas. A bit nationalistic, against EU membership.

The "Socialist Left party" (SV); far left party. Strongly anti-NATO and anti-US. If possible they would like to leave NATO in particular after the "out-of-region" strategy that is now being practiced in Afghanistan.

AP is by far the biggest. Since they entered office these parties have had several tough fights; in particular SV is struggling a lot. Many SV politicians have stated that too many compromises are being made, and they want to end the coalition.

In several news articles in Norway recently statements like "if you want a plane that is best suited to bomb Afghan villages, go for JSF; if you want a cheap plane that can intercept Russian aircrafts in the Barents region go for Gripen" have been made.

Whereas the US cannot enter into buy-back deals with Norway, Sweden can do this; in addition they have sensed how important rural areas are to this government (in particular to SP), and they have visited 200 companies from all Norwegian counties, suggesting deals that may go through if Norway buys Gripen.

To make the situation even more interesting, there will be elections in Norway next year.

This is how I read the situation: If the current government selects JSF SV would face a serious crisis; A far-left, anti-US, anti-NATO party simply cannot buy a plane that is "best suited to bomb Afghanistan but ill suited to intercept Russian airplanes", in particular not when there is a Swedish alternative. SV always wanted a closer defence tie with Sweden. This is the first time they participate in a government. If they fail to choose Gripen, I think it would be a political suicide to them. Either they would have to leave the government, or there is a high probability that their party may break up. In any case they and their other coalition partners would face a huge political crisis months before election. In contrast to such a disaster, selecting Gripen would be hailed as a huge success for SV which would be helpful when elections are approaching...

Although AP wanted strong ties to the US during the cold war, the geopolitical situation today is quite different; I believe that also AP is considering stronger ties to Sweden these days.

If I am right, then the departure of Eurofighter looks a bit strange; they left the competition because they believed JSF was given an unfair advantage and that Norway had already chosen the US alternative. However, there may be another explanation to this: Perhaps the Norwegian government has given in to the US demands for two reasons: a) it is not rational to enter tough negotiations with the US and then afterwards say "and by the way, we don't want your planes after all" and b) the aircraft deal must be approved by the Norwegian parliamant. The opposition parties are more to the right and would clearly prefer a US solution. If Gripen and not JSF is chosen then they will look for issues in the process to either delay or restart the whole thing.

What will the government do if they discover during the review process that the Swedish offer is not acceptable? My guess is that, instead of choosing JSF, they will simply find an excuse to not choose any of the planes, and delay the whole deal to after the elections. In such a situation it may even be helpful that Eurofighter is not in...it would have been a natural second choice, alas, they did not participate, so we need to go through this one more time...The government would then not succed, but at the same time they would avoid a complete disaster (from their point of view...)

If the current opposition would then go on to win the elections, the first thing they would do would be to restart the process, then they would select JSF; if the left wing should win again, then it is more open; my guess in such a scenario would be the Eurofighter...If for some reason Gripen would not be acceptable to them today it would probably not be acceptable in 2010.

I may be wrong of course...diverging opinions are of course highly welcome!


Cheers,


V

 

[Mystic]

A researcher from NUPI (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs) said in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten April 29 that he believes Sweden has a much bigger chance to succed this time, when comparing to the situation when the Swedish Viggen was competing against the F16 years ago.

I agree with this. Actually I think the most likely outcome will be Gripen not JSF. The reasons why I believe this:

The current Norwegian government consist of a coalition of three parties:

The norwegian labour party (AP); classical scandinavian social democratic party; often critical to US foreign politics however during the cold war they accepted the global political situation and was fully supportive of NATO membership and close defence ties with the US.

The "centre party" (SP); also known as the "farmer's party" in Norway. They focus mainly on domestic politics, in particular support to rural areas. A bit nationalistic, against EU membership.

The "Socialist Left party" (SV); far left party. Strongly anti-NATO and anti-US. If possible they would like to leave NATO in particular after the "out-of-region" strategy that is now being practiced in Afghanistan.

AP is by far the biggest. Since they entered office these parties have had several tough fights; in particular SV is struggling a lot. Many SV politicians have stated that too many compromises are being made, and they want to end the coalition.

In several news articles in Norway recently statements like "if you want a plane that is best suited to bomb Afghan villages, go for JSF; if you want a cheap plane that can intercept Russian aircrafts in the Barents region go for Gripen" have been made.

Whereas the US cannot enter into buy-back deals with Norway, Sweden can do this; in addition they have sensed how important rural areas are to this government (in particular to SP), and they have visited 200 companies from all Norwegian counties, suggesting deals that may go through if Norway buys Gripen.

To make the situation even more interesting, there will be elections in Norway next year.

This is how I read the situation: If the current government selects JSF SV would face a serious crisis; A far-left, anti-US, anti-NATO party simply cannot buy a plane that is "best suited to bomb Afghanistan but ill suited to intercept Russian airplanes", in particular not when there is a Swedish alternative. SV always wanted a closer defence tie with Sweden. This is the first time they participate in a government. If they fail to choose Gripen, I think it would be a political suicide to them. Either they would have to leave the government, or there is a high probability that their party may break up. In any case they and their other coalition partners would face a huge political crisis months before election. In contrast to such a disaster, selecting Gripen would be hailed as a huge success for SV which would be helpful when elections are approaching...

Although AP wanted strong ties to the US during the cold war, the geopolitical situation today is quite different; I believe that also AP is considering stronger ties to Sweden these days.

If I am right, then the departure of Eurofighter looks a bit strange; they left the competition because they believed JSF was given an unfair advantage and that Norway had already chosen the US alternative. However, there may be another explanation to this: Perhaps the Norwegian government has given in to the US demands for two reasons: a) it is not rational to enter tough negotiations with the US and then afterwards say "and by the way, we don't want your planes after all" and b) the aircraft deal must be approved by the Norwegian parliamant. The opposition parties are more to the right and would clearly prefer a US solution. If Gripen and not JSF is chosen then they will look for issues in the process to either delay or restart the whole thing.

What will the government do if they discover during the review process that the Swedish offer is not acceptable? My guess is that, instead of choosing JSF, they will simply find an excuse to not choose any of the planes, and delay the whole deal to after the elections. In such a situation it may even be helpful that Eurofighter is not in...it would have been a natural second choice, alas, they did not participate, so we need to go through this one more time...The government would then not succed, but at the same time they would avoid a complete disaster (from their point of view...)

If the current opposition would then go on to win the elections, the first thing they would do would be to restart the process, then they would select JSF; if the left wing should win again, then it is more open; my guess in such a scenario would be the Eurofighter...If for some reason Gripen would not be acceptable to them today it would probably not be acceptable in 2010.

I may be wrong of course...diverging opinions are of course highly welcome!


Cheers,


V

Wow, I think that's the best analysis I've seen on this site so far.
Are you suggesting Eurofighter will be in the competition again once the new gov't forms?

 

[Vivendi]

Wow, I think that's the best analysis I've seen on this site so far.
Are you suggesting Eurofighter will be in the competition again once the new gov't forms?

Thanks for the kind words

Actually I am suggesting that most likely the current government will go for Gripen; however, if for some reason the Swedish option does not work out, then yes, I think that there will be a new round, where Gripen has been replaced by Eurofighter...

For instance, it could be that a detailed review of the Swedish proposal will reveal a much higher price than originally anticipated; this in itself may not be a show-stopper however if in addition the review also identifies higher technical risk to the Gripen development project than anticipated then that combination could force them to ditch Gripen.

Many Norwegians would probably be surprised if JSF does not win; I would actually be very surprised if it does win...Of course I may be utterly wrong; I have no inside information -- I merely try to "read between the lines" when I read Norwegian and International newspapers.


Hours after LM and SAAB delivered their proposals, Gripen aircraft visited Norway:

"21:58, April 30, 2008
Norway and Sweden conducted a cross-border air force exercise in Norwegian air space for the first time, reports from Oslo said Wednesday.

Three Swedish Jas Gripen aircraft crossed the border Monday afternoon to participate in a joint exercise with the Norwegian Air Force in an area of Nordland county in northern Norway, the Norwegian public broadcaster NRK reported.

"We are opening the border between the countries in this cooperation, and in this way we cut costs," Swedish Air Force Major Karl-Johan Edstroem was quoted as saying.

"Earlier, we needed consent from both the Norwegian and Swedish governments each time we crossed the border. Now all that is needed is for me and my counterpart in Norway to agree before we carry out the exercise," Edstroem added. "

(above text qouted from the English internet version of "Chinese Daily")




Cheers,


V

 

[energo]

If the current opposition would then go on to win the elections, the first thing they would do would be to restart the process, then they would select JSF; if the left wing should win again, then it is more open; my guess in such a scenario would be the Eurofighter...If for some reason Gripen would not be acceptable to them today it would probably not be acceptable in 2010.

I may be wrong of course...diverging opinions are of course highly welcome!

An impressive and insightful post. Good work! As a norwegian who has closely followed this issue for years I might be able to shed some additional light on the situation.

Your reference to the Socialist Left Party's anti-USA stance is very much valid, but in this particular case it might not be as significant as it might seem at first. The party has a lightweight contribution in defence matters and has on several occations denounced the importance of the fighter purchase in relation to their core party programe. It is somewhat doubtful they have much influence on the other well established pro-NATO parties in the parliment on this issue.

In addition to this the F-35 is - to much of the goverment, the defence ministry and in particular the military - clearly the best alternative both technically and tactically. There is no doubt a strong incentive to follow in the same foot steps as with our previous fighter purchases, which have a very good track record: F-86, F-104 and F-16. Each programme marked a milestone and brought about new capabilities to the air force. In particular the F 16-programme is seen as a big success both strategic and operationally. This 'imprint' is going to be very hard to shake off and is in part the reason why the Eurofighter consortium withdrew from the competition - stating there really wasn't any competition.

That said, the Gripen was more or less out of the competition at the time the socialist party came into parliment and it was a big factor in having it rejoined, much on the grounds of it being a much cheaper alternative as well as the lucrative prospects of closer Scandinavian defence cooporation and industrual spinoffs. But last weeks bidding process has left the swedes without their paramount selling point: cost. The Gripen probably still has an advantage when it comes to total ownership cost - TCO - but the acquisition cost is more or less in the same ballpark.

In my personal opinion, I don't think the goverment will opt for a fighter type which already will have reached the peak of its career as its introduced into the air force around 2016. The F-35 - even at its birth - is still superior to the Gripen in most technical aspects and will provide a much stronger foundation for long term industrial collaboration, well into the 2030s and 2040s. The Gripens future looks bleak, to say the least, with empty order books beyond 2017.


Regards,
Bjørnar
Oslo