Here is a different viewpoint on the future of Gripen versus VLO :
ttp://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/047zojsh.asp
(Add an "h" infront of url)
Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?
- Thread starter Falstaff
- Start date
- Status
ttp://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/047zojsh.asp
(Add an "h" infront of url)
Grand Danois
Entertainer
So much erroneous stuff here, particularly on what VLO is about... I'll just quote from the STATEMENT OF: Lt Gen Donald J. Hoffman, SAF/AQ and Lt Gen Daniel J. Darnell, AF/3/5 to the THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE AIRLAND SUBCOMMITTEE:
"Legacy fourth generation aircraft simply cannot survive to operate
and achieve the effects necessary to win in an integrated, anti-access environment."
Going by the authors logic, 4th gens have their lifetime "truncated" day 1.
(And why does the author use the 130 mn usd LRIP figure for the cost comparison???)
Dalregementet
New Member
A story...
Two guys, Tom and Tim, were sleeping in a tent, suddenly they heard a hungry bear outside and they knew that the bear knew they were inside the tent. Tom then calmly put on his jogging shoes. Tim said "Are you out of your mind, you can't outrun a bear!". "I know" said Tom, "but It´s enough to outrun you".
I think that is the essence here. Norway doesn´t need to outperform the US or even to be on par regarding fighter aircraft, it´s enough to be better than the russians. Norway will that with Gripen. However, if Norway for some reason needs extensive US political and military support regarding russia, then that could be the differentiator that tips this over to the US side. If economy and industrial collaboration is more important than US political and military support, then Sweden wins. Norway, of course doesn´t loose US political and military support if Norway chooses Gripen, however if Norway require the US to do someting "extensive" then choosing F35 is wise.
Two guys, Tom and Tim, were sleeping in a tent, suddenly they heard a hungry bear outside and they knew that the bear knew they were inside the tent. Tom then calmly put on his jogging shoes. Tim said "Are you out of your mind, you can't outrun a bear!". "I know" said Tom, "but It´s enough to outrun you".
I think that is the essence here. Norway doesn´t need to outperform the US or even to be on par regarding fighter aircraft, it´s enough to be better than the russians. Norway will that with Gripen. However, if Norway for some reason needs extensive US political and military support regarding russia, then that could be the differentiator that tips this over to the US side. If economy and industrial collaboration is more important than US political and military support, then Sweden wins. Norway, of course doesn´t loose US political and military support if Norway chooses Gripen, however if Norway require the US to do someting "extensive" then choosing F35 is wise.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I don't think that we're in disagreement here (except that Norway would buy JSF to be in good standing with the US - US would help Norway out regardless. Actually I would think that a heavier Norwegian engagement in A'stan would curry more favour).
There is also the matter of the local OPFOR - the Russians. Inside the service life of this jet, the Russians will operate MiG-31/Flanker variants/PAK-FA. It's not just about intercepting bombers. No one can match the Americans, but they do need to match, or preferably overmatch, the Russians.
There are several discussions running parallel here. One is that VLO is of little use based on the wrongful assumptions that:
- partners won't get the full VLO of the F-35.
- VLO is stand-alone quality.
- an IADS capable of defeating VLO is just around the corner.
- use of EW can be considered a replacement.
- F-117 is retired due to battlespace obsolescence on platform level
- <fill in>
I'd just point out that the country that brings out stealth jets like the F-22A/F-35, also has the full portfolio of stand-off power jamming/escort jamming/self protection systems, full electronic spectrum dominance, and yet they still conclude that:
"Legacy fourth generation aircraft simply cannot survive to operate
and achieve the effects necessary to win in an integrated, anti-access environment."
Because stealth is complimentary and sympathetic to the rest of the package; a force multiplier, some would say.
It allows for a different use of offensive air; different from what it looks like with "3/4th gen" jets: http://www.lucky-devils.net/baghdad.html
Obviously, no one factor caused the loss of two F-16s and the possible loss of others. Rather a series of frictions the lateness of the Air Tasking Order, not enough coordination time, a tactical approach that provided the Iraqis considerable warning, fuel problems for the Weasels and other aircraft, bad weather, insufficient attrition of the defenses combined to create a dangerous situation, one ultimately catastrophic for two aircraft.
"There were a number of crucial lessons from Package Q. The most obvious was that enemy defenses in Baghdad remained lethal; consequently, it was not worth the risk to send conventional packages into the heart of those defenses, especially when F-117s could strike such targets with little risk. This was entirely the result of its stealthy qualities, which its precision-guided munition capabilities magnified. Conse-quently, enemy defenses never put F-117s in the position where they had to jettison bombs over populated areas, and the chances of civilian casualties that would allow Saddam to manipulate the American media were considerably lessened."
So it boils down to if Norway percieves a need to do offensive air ops.
Last edited:
Dalregementet
New Member
Agree.
JSF 4 sure !
Personally , I think that the Gripen group should have pulled out from
the competition at the same time as the Eurofighter consortium did.
Gripen has zero chance in this procurement and should instead look
towards other markets where they actually have a chance for a sale.
My reasons are not that technical, but
rather more economical/psychological :
1.) Good Neighbours?
Even though Sweden and Norway have the the same ancestors and
a very long common border, we are unfortunately not that friendly
with each other.
Some of the bad feelings between us goes back as far as to the
WWII where Norway was invaded and Sweden was "neutral", some
are from after the war when Sweden's undamaged industry could
excel globally and build up the rich country we now have, and some
are from the seventies when Norway found their black gold in the
north sea.
Sweden and Norway have yet no records of successful joint ventures
as most tries for cross border deals so far have ended in embarrassing
failures.
There has been lots of jealousy both ways over the years, and it seems
that we do not work well together. Maybe we are too much alike.
2.) Costs!
Yes, it is possible that Gripen is the most cost effective alternative in
the long run, and countries with a limited budget would surely look at
this issue carefully, but Norway is one of the richest states in the world
with a huge surplus of oil generated cash tucked away.
Their problem, even though a quite tricky one, is also a very pleasant
one : what to do with all that oil money and how to spend it so it does
not upset their domestic market?
Buying the best and the most expensive aircrafts available will solve
part of their problem without increasing the Norwegian inflation.
3.) Money down the drain?
Norway was a Tier 3 JSF consortium member dating back from 2002, did
they ever withdraw that membership and how much have they invested
in the project so far?
Wouldn't all that money be thrown away should they now choose an
alternative solution?
Personally , I think that the Gripen group should have pulled out from
the competition at the same time as the Eurofighter consortium did.
Gripen has zero chance in this procurement and should instead look
towards other markets where they actually have a chance for a sale.
My reasons are not that technical, but
rather more economical/psychological :
1.) Good Neighbours?
Even though Sweden and Norway have the the same ancestors and
a very long common border, we are unfortunately not that friendly
with each other.
Some of the bad feelings between us goes back as far as to the
WWII where Norway was invaded and Sweden was "neutral", some
are from after the war when Sweden's undamaged industry could
excel globally and build up the rich country we now have, and some
are from the seventies when Norway found their black gold in the
north sea.
Sweden and Norway have yet no records of successful joint ventures
as most tries for cross border deals so far have ended in embarrassing
failures.
There has been lots of jealousy both ways over the years, and it seems
that we do not work well together. Maybe we are too much alike.
2.) Costs!
Yes, it is possible that Gripen is the most cost effective alternative in
the long run, and countries with a limited budget would surely look at
this issue carefully, but Norway is one of the richest states in the world
with a huge surplus of oil generated cash tucked away.
Their problem, even though a quite tricky one, is also a very pleasant
one : what to do with all that oil money and how to spend it so it does
not upset their domestic market?
Buying the best and the most expensive aircrafts available will solve
part of their problem without increasing the Norwegian inflation.
3.) Money down the drain?
Norway was a Tier 3 JSF consortium member dating back from 2002, did
they ever withdraw that membership and how much have they invested
in the project so far?
Wouldn't all that money be thrown away should they now choose an
alternative solution?
No. Continued participation, i.e. the continued use of Norwegian components & hence revenue for Norwegian industry, is not dependent on buying the aircraft. It depends on investing in the design & development stages of the project, & Norway's done that.
Even if SAAB not win the contract they have got a lot of attention from media.
Norway have to much money?.. I don´t think so.
But the historical reason you bring up can at least have some impact, political reason- relation to NATO, USA - what other NATO-country choose to buy - and technical reasons.
In 2004, the Goverment Petroleum Fund of Norway had
988.1 Billion Norweigian Crowns.
I do not think it has shrunk much since then ;-)
The government of Norway have kept their cool and
wisely saves this heap of wealth as a sort of "retirement fund"
for the country when that rainy day occur and the pumps
finally goes dry.
Norway is Europes second richest state and the world's third
largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia and Russia, and it is a
very happy time in Norway right now!
988.1 Billion Norweigian Crowns.
I do not think it has shrunk much since then ;-)
The government of Norway have kept their cool and
wisely saves this heap of wealth as a sort of "retirement fund"
for the country when that rainy day occur and the pumps
finally goes dry.
Norway is Europes second richest state and the world's third
largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia and Russia, and it is a
very happy time in Norway right now!
So what?
To me it means that Norway not are in economical restrain when they choose air craft. That are a more reasonable definition - in my point of view.
Many roads in Norway are in "bad shape" (if I´m not misinformed) - and there are probably other "heavy" project in the future which need to be funded.
Norway can perhaps fund "all they need to fund". But just throw out money for it´s own sake seems to me strange and stupid etc, in what way you ever choose to put it.
Latest on F-35:
(h)ttp://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/16/223741/first-foreign-f-35-contract-awarded-canada-drops-future-order-by-15.html
The US Department of Defense has awarded the first contract to Lockheed Martin to build F-35 components for a foreign military customer, but reports from Australia, Canada and the Netherlands have clouded the overall sales outlook for the Joint Strike Fighter programme.
Lockheed will receive $197 million to acquire long-lead materials for 18 new aircraft, the DoD says, with these comprising eight conventional take-off and landing F-35As for the US Air Force, eight short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs for the US Marine Corps and two F-35Bs for the UK Ministry of Defence.
The contract omits an expected order for an additional F-35A for the Netherlands, but no explanation was given. The combined order for 10 F-35Bs also is contingent on Lockheed completing the first flight of development aircraft BF-1 in late May or June.
The new order will expand Lockheed's annual production rate from 12 aircraft this year to 18 in 2009. The DoD's original schedule called for buying 32 aircraft next year, but that number was slashed because of schedule delays and funding shortfalls.
Another 19 developmental prototypes have already been ordered to participate in the JSF programme's system development and demonstration phase, with one of these delivered so far.
News of the production award came as one of the JSF development programme's eight international partners disclosed a sharp reduction for its planned order of the type.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, briefing reporters on Ottawa's new defence strategy on 12 May, said his government has reduced its planned purchase from 80 fighters to 65. Canada is buying the F-35A to replace about 130 Boeing CF-18s, 80 of which are now being modernised. The F-35's greater capabilities will allow the government to reduce its planned order by a sixth, he added.
An Australian think-tank, meanwhile, also published a report on 12 May that raises fresh concerns about the F-35's price. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute estimates that the cost of the F-35A may have grown by one-third, as overall programme costs have increased by 50% since the SDD phase began in 2001.
Lockheed, however, has publicly guaranteed Norway a unit non-recurring flyaway price of $56 million, using current dollars, while Australian newspapers quoted Lockheed officials guaranteeing a unit flyaway cost of $62 million.
Anybody who has information regarding the Dutch order that was omitted ?
See also:
(h)ttp://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1450699420080514
OTTAWA, May 14 (Reuters) - There is no guarantee that Canada will buy any F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) despite helping to fund development of the new generation U.S. warplane, a senior military official said on Wednesday.
The message contradicted what officials said last year when they told reporters that Ottawa planned to buy 80 JSFs, which will be made by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research).
Earlier this week Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada would buy 65 modern fighters. When asked what kind of fighters, a Harper spokeswoman referred to the JSF program.
But the military official said that although the JSF was "a very good aircraft", Canada would be keeping its options open.
"Canada has not made a decision that (it) would procure the Joint Strike Fighter ... When it comes to the actual decision as which aircraft to purchase, it will be on a competitive basis," he told a briefing.
Cheers,
V.
(h)ttp://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/16/223741/first-foreign-f-35-contract-awarded-canada-drops-future-order-by-15.html
The US Department of Defense has awarded the first contract to Lockheed Martin to build F-35 components for a foreign military customer, but reports from Australia, Canada and the Netherlands have clouded the overall sales outlook for the Joint Strike Fighter programme.
Lockheed will receive $197 million to acquire long-lead materials for 18 new aircraft, the DoD says, with these comprising eight conventional take-off and landing F-35As for the US Air Force, eight short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs for the US Marine Corps and two F-35Bs for the UK Ministry of Defence.
The contract omits an expected order for an additional F-35A for the Netherlands, but no explanation was given. The combined order for 10 F-35Bs also is contingent on Lockheed completing the first flight of development aircraft BF-1 in late May or June.
The new order will expand Lockheed's annual production rate from 12 aircraft this year to 18 in 2009. The DoD's original schedule called for buying 32 aircraft next year, but that number was slashed because of schedule delays and funding shortfalls.
Another 19 developmental prototypes have already been ordered to participate in the JSF programme's system development and demonstration phase, with one of these delivered so far.
News of the production award came as one of the JSF development programme's eight international partners disclosed a sharp reduction for its planned order of the type.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, briefing reporters on Ottawa's new defence strategy on 12 May, said his government has reduced its planned purchase from 80 fighters to 65. Canada is buying the F-35A to replace about 130 Boeing CF-18s, 80 of which are now being modernised. The F-35's greater capabilities will allow the government to reduce its planned order by a sixth, he added.
An Australian think-tank, meanwhile, also published a report on 12 May that raises fresh concerns about the F-35's price. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute estimates that the cost of the F-35A may have grown by one-third, as overall programme costs have increased by 50% since the SDD phase began in 2001.
Lockheed, however, has publicly guaranteed Norway a unit non-recurring flyaway price of $56 million, using current dollars, while Australian newspapers quoted Lockheed officials guaranteeing a unit flyaway cost of $62 million.
Anybody who has information regarding the Dutch order that was omitted ?
See also:
(h)ttp://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1450699420080514
OTTAWA, May 14 (Reuters) - There is no guarantee that Canada will buy any F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) despite helping to fund development of the new generation U.S. warplane, a senior military official said on Wednesday.
The message contradicted what officials said last year when they told reporters that Ottawa planned to buy 80 JSFs, which will be made by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research).
Earlier this week Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada would buy 65 modern fighters. When asked what kind of fighters, a Harper spokeswoman referred to the JSF program.
But the military official said that although the JSF was "a very good aircraft", Canada would be keeping its options open.
"Canada has not made a decision that (it) would procure the Joint Strike Fighter ... When it comes to the actual decision as which aircraft to purchase, it will be on a competitive basis," he told a briefing.
Cheers,
V.
Ehm your personal opinion, shows the lack of knowlodge you´ve about the swedish high-tech industry. and other companies working on the gripen NG project, [Admin: Text deleted. Read the forum rules please. Play the ball, not the man. It helps to rebut with detail rather than the way you did]
reach its peak in 2016?? inferior on all levels technolgy speaking? hahah
lucky the rest of the world actually use less heart and more time to read about the A/C..
Last edited by a moderator:
Norway has some major infrastructure problems with substandard schools, hospitals and roading, these are issues that need to be addressed before the govt spend money on expensive toys for the airforce. Most Norwegians I know prefer the cheaper Gripen option. After procurement problems with the Nansens and the Skjolds I don't believe the JSF has much of a chance.
The Government Pension Fund of Norway (previously Petruleum Fund) is currently at about NOK 2200 Bil. or about USD 440 Bil. It's predicted to double by 2014 and reach NOK 16400 Bil. in 2030.
However, by it self the fund does not secure future govermental expenses. The pension insurance expenditure alone is twice todays Pension Fund at almost NOK 4500 Bil. and grows at about 8-10% annualy. It will grow even faster with an ageing population in the next decades.
Regards,
Bjørnar
Oslo
You are welcome to substantiate your views.
I think there's little doubt that the F-35 is better when it comes to range, payload, avionics, sensors and stealth. Its performance parameters seems at least on par and it appears to have only a moderately higher price tag. Combined with stealth it offers superior survivability, electronic signal intelligence capability and situational awereness -- crucial factors on the future battlefield.While the F-35 has a solid road map until at least 2035 the Gripen has no concrete plans beyond 2025, at which point it will basically be a 30 year old air frame. The Gripen NG is possibly the last major upgrade to the airframe, although nothing is written in stone at this point of course.
Regards,
Bjørnar
Oslo
Last edited:
The range is on pair, except for heavy loadouts, where F35 is better.
Gripen is ~25% faster then F35, both at military and A/B settings, -crucial factors for a fighter.
Price is only moderatly higher when you look at the cost, but rises to ~twice as expensive over 20 years.
Today there doesnt exist any Gripen NG airframes, so if they start to build them by 2012, the airframes will be 13 years at 2025, roughly as old as F35 airframes.
regards, Sigmund, Pattaya
Gripen is ~25% faster then F35, both at military and A/B settings, -crucial factors for a fighter.
Price is only moderatly higher when you look at the cost, but rises to ~twice as expensive over 20 years.
Today there doesnt exist any Gripen NG airframes, so if they start to build them by 2012, the airframes will be 13 years at 2025, roughly as old as F35 airframes.
regards, Sigmund, Pattaya
Elaborate, please.
Range: The F-35 has a 30% higher fuel fraction over the Gripen NG. Gripen will have to employ one or two external fuel tanks to match its tactical radius.
Speed: F-35 is confirmed at mach 1.6 with a tactical weapons layout while the Gripen NG is listed at mach 2.0 - clean. A likely weapons layout, quoted by Lockheed Martins promotion material, is 100% internal fuel, 2x AAMs and 2x 500lbs GBU-12s. Such a configuration, including external fuel, will reduce the Gripens top dash speed considerably.
Age: Gripen was introduced in 1996. Its design reflects an evolution over the F-16 while the F-35 represents a new generation design embodying all-aspect stealth technologies.
Cost: Factor in comparably more upgrades in the future to keep Gripen competitive against stealth capable adversaries and survivable in high-threat battlefield conditions. However, there are few guarantees such upgrades will be cost effective, or available, in the post 2025 timeframe.
Regards,
Bjørnar
Oslo
Last edited:
Range: Both planes internal fuel only
Gripen A/B 11 min=18.3% h @mach 2 -> 0.183x2387 km/h=437 km
F35 A/B 12.6 min =21% h @mach 1.6 -> 0.21x1910 km/h=401 km
Gripen range advantage at A/B = 8%
Gripen NG Military 1 external tank + a2a missiles supercruise at mach 1.1 so
Gripen Military 51 min @mach 1.1 -> 0.85x1346 km/h =1144 km
F35 military 55.1 min @mach 0.9 -> 0.92x1074 km/h =988 km
Gripen range advantage at military = 14%
Speed: Gripen is confirmed to supercruise at mach 1.1 with 1 external tank + a2a loadout.
F35 is ~20% slower regardless of A/B or military.
Keep in mind, that the Me262 had a similar speed advantage, and the immediate reaction from the allies pilots was: "-what was that ? what the hell was that ? it went by us as if we were standing still !?" [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-8CQp2_BLc&feature=related"]YouTube - ME262 Jet[/ame]
Gripen A/B 11 min=18.3% h @mach 2 -> 0.183x2387 km/h=437 km
F35 A/B 12.6 min =21% h @mach 1.6 -> 0.21x1910 km/h=401 km
Gripen range advantage at A/B = 8%
Gripen NG Military 1 external tank + a2a missiles supercruise at mach 1.1 so
Gripen Military 51 min @mach 1.1 -> 0.85x1346 km/h =1144 km
F35 military 55.1 min @mach 0.9 -> 0.92x1074 km/h =988 km
Gripen range advantage at military = 14%
Speed: Gripen is confirmed to supercruise at mach 1.1 with 1 external tank + a2a loadout.
F35 is ~20% slower regardless of A/B or military.
Keep in mind, that the Me262 had a similar speed advantage, and the immediate reaction from the allies pilots was: "-what was that ? what the hell was that ? it went by us as if we were standing still !?"
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-8CQp2_BLc&feature=related"]YouTube - ME262 Jet[/ame]
Last edited:
F-15 Eagle
New Member
I would like to know how you come up with all of that. The Gripens combat range is 500 miles well the combat range for the F-35 is 600 miles.
The Gripen does not have any supercruise it has to use afterburner to go supersonic. The Gripen's engine gives out around 18,000 pounds of thrust well the F-35 gives out 40,000lbs of thrust(almost as much as the twin-engine F-15). the F-35 will easly out-accelerate the Gripen when both are using full afterburner.
The F-35s top speed is 1200mph which is more like Mach 1.8 so I don't know were you get M1.6.
- Status