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

[Grand Danois]

Fair enough.

(Didn't realise you were from Portugal. I have wondered what Portugals position is on a F-16 replacement, as it currently is an EEAW/EPAF member, but is a little short of cash.)

re: US Congress & USAF. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

 

[Sintra]

Fair enough.

(Didn't realise you were from Portugal. I have wondered what Portugals position is on a F-16 replacement, as it currently is an EEAW/EPAF member, but is a little short of cash.)

re: US Congress & USAF. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

The Air Force on an "non official" way has stated a few times through several Senior Officers interviews that it would love to see the F-35A in the "ranks". The Government whistles...
If buying two submarines worth something like 900 million Euros was a national "disgrace" to part of the Congress, you can imagine the political storm that a program to acquire two sqn´s worth of next generation fighters would cause.
The usual...

Cheers

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Until the end of this year we are going to see a new American administration, if Barack Obama sits in the White House expect a massive "slash" in the Pentagon Budget, and you are well aware what his the biggest acquisition program that they are running for the next two decades. If Mcain gets the election, then we are going to see a lot of American Troops in Iraq for a very long time, and i cant imagine the USAF getting a budget raise to buy new fighters.

I don't want to get into a political debate but both Obama and McCain support rebuilding the American military and making the investments needed. Yes its true that Obama will cut the military budget becasue he will pull out of Iraq therefor not spending $120 billion a year on the war in Iraq and refocus on the war in Afghanistan, well McCain supports staying in Iraq. They both want to cut and get rid of any waste which is good because there is a lot of wasteful spending thats need to be cut and I'm confident that the USAF and the U.S. military will far better under ether Obama or McCain then they are right now.

 

[Sintra]

I don't want to get into a political debate but both Obama and McCain support rebuilding the American military and making the investments needed. Yes its true that Obama will cut the military budget becasue he will pull out of Iraq therefor not spending $120 billion a year on the war in Iraq and refocus on the war in Afghanistan, well McCain supports staying in Iraq. They both want to cut and get rid of any waste which is good because there is a lot of wasteful spending thats need to be cut and I'm confident that the USAF and the U.S. military will far better under ether Obama or McCain then they are right now.

Hope you are right mate.

On another note i have just uncovered a really small chart from the latest document that was released by the JSF Team in February this year. In that chart it´s quite clear that the JSF Team and Lockheed Martin dont expect a production rate of 110 F-35A by year for the USAF. In that document the peak will be at 80 units and it would be met only in 2017. And the USAF have been debriefing several Congress members quite recently for that most famous "48 F-35A/year" rate...
It seems that we have a "realistic" production range somewhere between 48 units to 80 units a year.

Document (page 31, chart "Lightning Strike"):
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AV_Week_Brief_-_2008_FEB_13.pdf

Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Hope you are right mate.

On another note i have just uncovered a really small chart from the latest document that was released by the JSF Team in February this year. In that chart it´s quite clear that the JSF Team and Lockheed Martin dont expect a production rate of 110 F-35A by year for the USAF. In that document the peak will be at 80 units and it would be met only in 2017. And the USAF have been debriefing several Congress members quite recently for that most famous "48 F-35A/year" rate...
It seems that we have a "realistic" production range somewhere between 48 units to 80 units a year.

Document (page 31, chart "Lightning Strike"):
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AV_Week_Brief_-_2008_FEB_13.pdf


Cheers

So what will the total US production of JSF for the US be in 2015? Get that number, compare it with the 2007 estimate, return to subject. Do you notice something? The US will get 130 JSF total/year in that period! Btw, does this chart say the US will only get 172 F-35A?

Now we're at it, do you know where I can find an earlier production schedule of the F-35A?

 

[Sea Toby]

As I recall, during February the production chart changed reflecting the ability of Lockheed Martin to build more aircraft. Many nations wish to delay their aircraft in an attempt to get a lower price, making any attempt to have a production chart difficult. With these changes, the US will receive some of their aircraft earlier and much later.

There was a time when Australia wanted their aircraft as soon as possible. Having bought Super Hornets to fill the F-111 gap, and with the possibility of more delays to get a lower price, the Aussie's may buy more Super Hornets. When the Aussie's do finally receive their full allotment of F-35s., then they would trade in all of their Super Hornets. After all, the US would accept them, since most of the US production of F-35s will be later in the now extended construction program. The US has a fighter gap for both services too.

Therefore, I would say its very possible that there will be production changes every year. Nothing is built on a sollid rock, this program is flexible.

 

[Sintra]

So what will the total US production of JSF for the US be in 2015? Get that number, compare it with the 2007 estimate, return to subject. Do you notice something? The US will get 130 JSF total/year in that period! Btw, does this chart say the US will only get 172 F-35A?

Now we're at it, do you know where I can find an earlier production schedule of the F-35A?

hwell
Gosh
Left top of the Chart "Source JESB Profile - April 2007"...
It seems that i was a bit too fast on my conclusions, that chart his quite old.
Oh gosh, back to square one.
Sorry for that one...

The oldest chart that i have seen his from 2005, in here (page 8): http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA Conf - JSF Program Update - 13 Sep 05.PDF

Cheers

 

[Vivendi]

Quite interesting read:

(h)ttp://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/July/F-35fact.htm

Modern warplanes typically have been built in small quantities over the course of many years. The Navy’s F/A-18, which has been in production for more than 20 years, is being built at a rate of 42 aircraft per year. But the F-35 Lightning II is expected to be built at an unprecedented rate — as many as 230 fighters per year.

Lockheed has embraced the moving assembly line concept as the linchpin to produce the next-generation fighter in large enough quantities to satisfy U.S. and international sales.
The U.S. military is buying about 2,500 aircraft. Allied nations are purchasing an additional 500 or so. Lockheed Martin officials are expecting foreign military sales to hike the total number to more than 4,000 Joint Strike Fighters.

“You’re really looking at F-16-like numbers,” says O’Bryan.

Once the line ramps up to full-rate production — possibly as early as 2016 — the company estimates it will assemble about 21 fighters per month, or roughly one aircraft per working day.
The moving assembly line is the only way to reach that rate of production, O’Bryan says. The F-35 measures 51 feet in length. “If the plane doesn’t move 51 feet a day … you’re not going to produce one a day.”
...
This new way of constructing aircraft also means that more automation can be incorporated into the production line. Lockheed is responsible for building the forward fuselage as well as the wings — the largest and most complex component of the fighter. Using auto-drive vehicles, workers are constructing the wings, which are held upright and surrounded by stands that move up and down. “We’ve never built a wing vertically,” says O’Bryan.

The ability to use auto drilling for the forward fuselage and wing structure keeps workers from having to spend several days manually drilling holes. Wings often have hundreds of holes; each JSF wing requires drilling more than 3,000.

“Now you get to do that in one pass,” says Villanueva.
...
The price tag of the F-35 remains a point of contention. The credibility of various cost estimates has been questioned by various government audits. Lockheed Martin says that the unit cost of the F-35A conventional fighter is less than $50 million, in 2002 dollars, when the contract was initially awarded. By the same accounting, the F-35B and F-35C are about $60 million per copy.

In an audit last year, however, the Government Accountability Office estimated that the F-35 could cost as much as $97.6 million apiece, in 2008 dollars. Norway recently asked the U.S. government to provide information on a potential buy of 48 F-35s for delivery in 2016. Lockheed estimated that, in 2008 dollars, each aircraft would cost $56.5 million, with an additional $2.2 million for auxiliary mission equipment, such as pylons, rails and the helmet-mounted display systems.

If the partner nations place early orders, those price tags could be reduced, depending on the timing and the numbers of aircraft, Lockheed officials say.

Very impressive! It will be interesting to see if LM can deliver on these promises... Another big question; will they manage to sell 230 F-35 every year since it seems the US armed forces plan to buy them at a slower rate? Anyway, it seems LM will be able to handle most scenarios when it comes to deliveries...


V.

 

[Grand Danois]

I've been in the countryside & the beach for the past week, so missed this tidbit. Very interesting with regard to the Eurofighters withdrawal. The multirole issue apparently hurt it.

It's a systran from Norwegian to English. I weeded out the worst translation errors.

Requires fighter aircraft that could bomb the enemy

In a hitherto unknown letters to aircraft manufacturers requires the Air Force that Norway's new fighter aircraft to be able to participate in offensive operations and bomb enemy territory.

The letter from Kampflyprosjektet, which will recommend the Government which aircraft to replace the F-16, specifies the objectives of fighter aircraft in a manner that might be seen as politically controversial - and tailor-made for the American fighter JSF. Critics characterize the JSF as a bombers.

The letter from October 2007, as Aftenposten has been granted access to, ask Kampflyprosjektet relating to access to test the planes properties in the simulator. The mission of Norway's new fighter is described as follows:

# "The primary task will be to destroy ground targets, moving and static. The number of goals per mission should be at least one each fighter. "In other words, bombing of targets on the ground in hostile areas.

# "The secondary task will be offensive air, and the destruction of the enemy's radar and air forces that are required to perform the primary task." In other words, attacks on the fighter who defend the hostile area, and the destruction of radar, etc.

The letter went to the three aircraft manufacturers; U.S. Lockheed Martin (Joint Strike Fighter), Swedish Saab (JAS Gripen) and the European Eurofighter, who resigned in protest after the short.

Monitoring.
While in particular SV has been extremely keen to acquire fighter aircraft that first and foremost to monitor and enforce the Norwegian sovereignty in the richest far north - that is, fast and long-aircraft - will be there in the letter specified a number of demands on the offensive kampegenskaper.

Independent defence analyst John Berg is sjokkert of the letter:

-- The letter indicates that the first priority is not only international operations, such as our F-16 aircraft have participated in over Afghanistan, but operations as more similar to the attack on Iraq in 2003, and a possible attack on Iran at some time in the future.

-- The document specifies operations in the hostile area where there is a strong, integrated air defence with a SAMs, supported by fighter aircraft. I would think that such missions had the lowest priority. But then, it has emerged that this is the Air Force put the greatest emphasis on. The Ministry of Defence must clarify whether the process is based on our needs in the far north as the first priority, or international operations, "says Berg.

"Rogue States"
He believes that the specification is directed toward the plane to attack countries like Iran, North Korea and China.

-- JSF is designed for such operations. The note shows that the Air Force hangs again in thinking from around 2000, when the ambitions was to be with the United States for actions in a strong consolidation of positions far inside the "røverstater." At the mindset is still live, is very surprising, "says Berg.

SVs defence spokesman Peter Sterling says that Berg has "the right in their suspicions."

-- It is not the order we have given to the Air Force. It is not the specifications the Norwegian people demand. 80 percent of the use of the planes is the opposite, it is we who will defend anything, not to use them as attack aircraft, "says Jacobsen.

At the same time, he chooses to interpret the letter positive:

-- All are agreed that we should have a multirole figter. The Armed Forces of Norway is the main target, but we should also have the capacity to defend international law. I assume that it is these qualities they are most uncertain, and so they have asked to know more about exactly those qualities. I assume that the Air Force sitting in with information about the other properties, which range and the possibility of disruption, "he says.

-- If they have not checked the aircraft for the properties are needed to monitor the vast ocean and our land, they will learn to laugh. I take for granted that they do not want to set up in such a situation. In any case, it would be a political assessment that determines in the end, "says Jacobsen.

Facts: Jagerflykjøp
The mission of future fighter:

The primary task will be to destroy
various bakkemål, mobile and fixed.

The secondary task will be
offensive air (Offensive Counter Air),
and the destruction of the enemy's radarsystem
necessary to complete the primary tasks
(DEAD, Destruction of Enemy Air Defence.


The competition between Sweden's Saab (JAS Gripen) and the U.S. Lockheed Martin (Joint Strike Fighter - JSF).

The Government is planning to put forward its proposal to Parliament before Christmas.

The Parliament should adopt flykjøpet the spring of 2009

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2554540.ece

 

[Grand Danois]

Btw, what's up with John Berg? He says that:

Independent defence analyst John Berg is chocked of the letter:

-- The letter indicates that the first priority is not only international operations, such as our F-16 aircraft have participated in over Afghanistan, but operations as more similar to the attack on Iraq in 2003, and a possible attack on Iran at some time in the future.

Strawman. You buy a jet, you don't buy into possible US attacks on rogue states. He's trying to tag OIF onto a fighter purchase. Does he disagree with the jet or the US foreign policy?

-- The document specifies operations in the hostile area where there is a strong, integrated air defence with a SAMs, supported by fighter aircraft. I would think that such missions had the lowest priority. But then, it has emerged that this is the Air Force put the greatest emphasis on. The Ministry of Defence must clarify whether the process is based on our needs in the far north as the first priority, or international operations, "says Berg.

Fallacy. International operations and collective defence is the future - intercepting Russian bombers is marginal. If war breaks out, Norway isn't alone. You prepare for the future, not the past (the Cold War).

"Rogue States"
He believes that the specification is directed toward the plane to attack countries like Iran, North Korea and China.

Reiteration of strawman.

-- JSF is designed for such operations. The note shows that the Air Force hangs again in thinking from around 2000, when the ambitions was to be with the United States for actions in a strong consolidation of positions far inside the "Rogue States." At the mindset is still live, is very surprising, "says Berg.

So it's better to adopt a 1980s stance? The RNAF is focused on survivability (LO and superior avionics), because that is the most cost-effective when shots are actually traded.

Anyways he seems to be of the old sprint & WVR dogfight school of A2A combat.

 

[Vivendi]

Btw, what's up with John Berg? He says that:

-- The document specifies operations in the hostile area where there is a strong, integrated air defence with a SAMs, supported by fighter aircraft. I would think that such missions had the lowest priority. But then, it has emerged that this is the Air Force put the greatest emphasis on. The Ministry of Defence must clarify whether the process is based on our needs in the far north as the first priority, or international operations, "says Berg

Fallacy. International operations and collective defence is the future - intercepting Russian bombers is marginal. If war breaks out, Norway isn't alone. You prepare for the future, not the past (the Cold War).

Could it be that the scenario was somewhat peculiar and "optimized" for F-35?

Look at this: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/GRIPEN042508.xml

Part of the Norwegian evaluation scenario in support of its fighter choice included contender aircraft being tasked with destroying targets within a surface-to-air missile (SAM) system environment based on highly capable double-digit SAMs. The simulation scenario, however, called for the aircraft to be operated inside the engagement ranges of all SAMs with the weapons of choice restricted to the GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition and GBU-10/12 Paveway II weapons.

Now, if you had 4.5 gen. fighters only, would you choose to attack a ground target protected by "highly capable double-digit SAMs" using GBU-31 and GBU-10/12? Or would you consider weapens with a somewhat longer range?


However, in any case I guess the RNAF is right; the only thing acceptable for future warfare is a VLO platform. I feel pity for the European countries that wasted billions of Euros on Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen which will become almost completely useless in a few years. The question is, will countries like Germany, France and Sweden "bite the bullet", accept defeat and either buy F-35 (like UK, Spain, and Italy) or start their own manned VLO development platform? Or will they become marginalized in modern air warfare due to their obsolete platforms? Probably they will try to "mend" things by keep developing things like Taurus even further, and perhaps consider UCAVs sooner rather than later. In any case they have a problem!


Invasion of Norway is highly unlikely as long as Norway is part of NATO. However one may imagine limited military conflicts off the Norwegian mainland, e.g. in the Barents sea. As you know parts of those regions are not internationally recognized to belong to either Norway or Russia; NATO may or may not take action in such a case, and Norway may well find herself alone against Russia..

I am not sure that all countries need F-35 though; In peace time Norway needs something to do air-policing; it could be F-16, or it could be Gripen. In a military conflict with Russia I don't think it matters whether we have 48 Gripen or 48 F-35! To make a difference we would need to increase military spending dramatically from today's 1.5% to, say, 5-6% of GDP. So I say; either go for F-35, and increase spending to make a difference, or keep spending at 1.5%, go for Gripen because it'c cheap, and be nice to the Russians. (I have a feeling I will never become the next prime minister of Norway )


V

 

[Vivendi]

"Rogue States"
He believes that the specification is directed toward the plane to attack countries like Iran, North Korea and China.

Look at this: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/GRIPEN042508.xml

Part of the Norwegian evaluation scenario in support of its fighter choice included contender aircraft being tasked with destroying targets within a surface-to-air missile (SAM) system environment based on highly capable double-digit SAMs. The simulation scenario, however, called for the aircraft to be operated inside the engagement ranges of all SAMs with the weapons of choice restricted to the GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition and GBU-10/12 Paveway II weapons.

On Iran:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/07/29/irans-natanz-tough-nut-to-crack/

The real threat to an attacker, he says, are Iranian surface-to-air missiles. There are reports that the Iranians field some of the newer Russian-built double digit SAMs, such as the SA-10, though not the newer and more potent SA-20 (the newer Russian designation is S-300 and S-400). The S-300 is considered by some accounts to be comparable to the U.S.-built Patriot air defense missile.

Ochmanek says the double digit SAMs are far more capable than the earlier SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6.

Comparing the Norwegian "attack scenario" with bombing of Iran could be relevant? The two scenarios seems similar to me. Most Norwegians are not aware of this, so if Berg wants to point that out, what's wrong with that?

Another thing is that we may see a future need to do similar bombings of Russia.... Or do we really...!?

V

 

[Grand Danois]

Could it be that the scenario was somewhat peculiar and "optimized" for F-35?

Look at this: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/GRIPEN042508.xml



Now, if you had 4.5 gen. fighters only, would you choose to attack a ground target protected by "highly capable double-digit SAMs" using GBU-31 and GBU-10/12? Or would you consider weapens with a somewhat longer range?

I wouldn't really go hunting for double-digit SAMs with JDAM armed F-35s either. The difference from the AW article is that Aftenposten makes a direct link to the EF withdrawal.

However, in any case I guess the RNAF is right; the only thing acceptable for future warfare is a VLO platform. I feel pity for the European countries that wasted billions of Euros on Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen which will become almost completely useless in a few years. The question is, will countries like Germany, France and Sweden "bite the bullet", accept defeat and either buy F-35 (like UK, Spain, and Italy) or start their own manned VLO development platform? Or will they become marginalized in modern air warfare due to their obsolete platforms? Probably they will try to "mend" things by keep developing things like Taurus even further, and perhaps consider UCAVs sooner rather than later. In any case they have a problem!

I think the 4.5 gen/UCAV/cruise missile solution is valid. But an expensive and complex additional capability and not as efficient as a stealth plus, say a JSOW. The RNAF is not that big an air force.

Invasion of Norway is highly unlikely as long as Norway is part of NATO. However one may imagine limited military conflicts off the Norwegian mainland, e.g. in the Barents sea. As you know parts of those regions are not internationally recognized to belong to either Norway or Russia; NATO may or may not take action in such a case, and Norway may well find herself alone against Russia..

Political clout and not military might is the primary tool in the Barents.

I am not sure that all countries need F-35 though; In peace time Norway needs something to do air-policing; it could be F-16, or it could be Gripen. In a military conflict with Russia I don't think it matters whether we have 48 Gripen or 48 F-35! To make a difference we would need to increase military spending dramatically from today's 1.5% to, say, 5-6% of GDP. So I say; either go for F-35, and increase spending to make a difference, or keep spending at 1.5%, go for Gripen because it'c cheap, and be nice to the Russians. (I have a feeling I will never become the next prime minister of Norway )


V

I've suggested in another thread that if Denmark goes for Gripen, then the buy should be reduced to an enhanced sqn for air policing. Having and expeditionary sqn that doesn't fit into EPAF EEAW logistics, materiel and doctrine would be less than optimal, so a relative waste to keep up pretense. That's why the international ops element is crucial and why the selectee has to be survivable in a double-digit SAM plus fighters environment. Because you won't know what your jets will be tasked with over the next 30-40 years.

 

[Grand Danois]

On Iran:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/07/29/irans-natanz-tough-nut-to-crack/

Comparing the Norwegian "attack scenario" with bombing of Iran could be relevant? The two scenarios seems similar to me. Most Norwegians are not aware of this, so if Berg wants to point that out, what's wrong with that?

Another thing is that we may see a future need to do similar bombings of Russia.... Or do we really...!?

V

Nope. There a not really any credible evidence on Iranian S-300. The sources are speculation, anonymous "people in the know" and circular references.

If you do a Google on S-300 and Iran, you'll notice that Iran has aquired these systems every year since 1993 and in multiple variants. These reports are pure speculation, threat hyping or wishful thinking. When they parade them around I'll believe it.

That Bergs point it out, is because he has a desire to leverage criticism. Since going into capability would discuss limitations*, he associates the F-35 with unpopular parts of US foreign policy. As if a buy is collusion.

Now, the RNAF has been employed in Allied Force 1999, which was done for European reasons. However the US had to do the heavy work, because the Europeans did not have the capability to pursue it. Too much air policing.

Second, Afghanistan, which was not really a controversial deployment. And Berg does not criticize it.

Norway is free to chose when to commit forces. Choice of jet is critical if it is to remain an option.

So when he "calls" the Norwegian government on its foreign policies, he really does not critize what Norway has done, but what the Americans do.

* As in acknowledging that the competition has less offensive counter-air and offensive air-ground capability. Instead he argues that it will be used for unpopular US wars, despite that RNAF being expeditionary is already a fact.

 

[Vivendi]

I wouldn't really go hunting for double-digit SAMs with JDAM armed F-35s either.

You are probably right, however presumably a VLO platform like F-35 would be more successful than any 4.5 gen fighter?

The difference from the AW article is that Aftenposten makes a direct link to the EF withdrawal.

Well they make the observation that EF witdrew after the letter was sent. Keep in mind EF also widthdrew from Denmark -- did the Danes send a similar letter?

I think the 4.5 gen/UCAV/cruise missile solution is valid. But an expensive and complex additional capability and not as efficient as a stealth plus, say a JSOW. The RNAF is not that big an air force.

True...

Political clout and not military might is the primary tool in the Barents.

I agree. Still, a big country has always two choices when in a dispute with a small country: Either negotiate or use force. The small country has no choice... The small country may consider to make the "negotiate option" as attractive as possible and the "force option" as un-attractive as possible for the big country. The big country will always choose the solution that is most beneficial, of course. If the big country decides to use force the small country has already lost... Norway should therefore work hard to build a strong and good relationship to Russia, but at the same time have sufficient military precense to make the "military option" unattractive.

I do not know whether F-35 or Gripen would be the best choice given the above; F-35 seems the obvious choice however currently there is some uncertainty around costs and delivery times; If it becomes so expensive that it affects other important parts like the navy then F-35 may become less attractive. Even Gripen will be capable of inflicting a lot of damage given the right weapon suite and a good sorrounding network, hopefully making the idea of using force un-attractive.

I've suggested in another thread that if Denmark goes for Gripen, then the buy should be reduced to an enhanced sqn for air policing. Having and expeditionary sqn that doesn't fit into EPAF EEAW logistics, materiel and doctrine would be less than optimal, so a relative waste to keep up pretense. That's why the international ops element is crucial and why the selectee has to be survivable in a double-digit SAM plus fighters environment. Because you won't know what your jets will be tasked with over the next 30-40 years.

True, and the question then is: Does little Norway need to offer this service to NATO and/or UN? We can offer other components like submarines and (in the near future) frigates, components many other countries cannot offer. Also in the current situation in Afghanistan there is a much larger need for soldiers than VLO fighters. Perhaps Norway should train more soldiers instead of buing VLO fighters...

Anyway, I agree that the "right way" to do this is first do decide the need (e.g., expeditionary force or not) and then decide fighter from this. The process in Norway is terrible: It seems to me the RNAF has decided what they want quite independent of what policy Norway decides to go for; and (most of) the politicians are not focusing on the main policy decision instead they concentrate on what economic impact the fighter choice will have and how it will influence our relationship to US and Sweden. Important questions but -- I have the impression they see only a small part of the whole picture.

V

 

[Dalregementet]

Pity?

Could it be that the scenario was somewhat peculiar and "optimized" for F-35?

Look at this: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/GRIPEN042508.xml



Now, if you had 4.5 gen. fighters only, would you choose to attack a ground target protected by "highly capable double-digit SAMs" using GBU-31 and GBU-10/12? Or would you consider weapens with a somewhat longer range?


However, in any case I guess the RNAF is right; the only thing acceptable for future warfare is a VLO platform. I feel pity for the European countries that wasted billions of Euros on Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen which will become almost completely useless in a few years. The question is, will countries like Germany, France and Sweden "bite the bullet", accept defeat and either buy F-35 (like UK, Spain, and Italy) or start their own manned VLO development platform? Or will they become marginalized in modern air warfare due to their obsolete platforms? Probably they will try to "mend" things by keep developing things like Taurus even further, and perhaps consider UCAVs sooner rather than later. In any case they have a problem!


Invasion of Norway is highly unlikely as long as Norway is part of NATO. However one may imagine limited military conflicts off the Norwegian mainland, e.g. in the Barents sea. As you know parts of those regions are not internationally recognized to belong to either Norway or Russia; NATO may or may not take action in such a case, and Norway may well find herself alone against Russia..

I am not sure that all countries need F-35 though; In peace time Norway needs something to do air-policing; it could be F-16, or it could be Gripen. In a military conflict with Russia I don't think it matters whether we have 48 Gripen or 48 F-35! To make a difference we would need to increase military spending dramatically from today's 1.5% to, say, 5-6% of GDP. So I say; either go for F-35, and increase spending to make a difference, or keep spending at 1.5%, go for Gripen because it'c cheap, and be nice to the Russians. (I have a feeling I will never become the next prime minister of Norway )


V

I think that you always have to compare costs with the effect you get. Do you need F35 in order to counter current and future russian fighter aircrafts? Probably not. Do your survivability increase in an attack scenario if you have F35 instead of Gripen/Eurofigher/Rafale - probably, but how much? Can current/future technology decrease the importance of stealth in the way US has applied it (stealthy airframe structure in conjuction with radar absorbing materials)? Well, with many networked transmitters and recievers, the US stealth advantage might decrease?

Finally, how much is Norway prepared to pay for F35 in comparrisson with Gripen? F35 is at least 50% more expensive. On top of that, Saab offers an extensive offset deal in contrast to the US.

 

[Dalregementet]

Response

Btw, what's up with John Berg? He says that:



Strawman. You buy a jet, you don't buy into possible US attacks on rogue states. He's trying to tag OIF onto a fighter purchase. Does he disagree with the jet or the US foreign policy?



Fallacy. International operations and collective defence is the future - intercepting Russian bombers is marginal. If war breaks out, Norway isn't alone. You prepare for the future, not the past (the Cold War).



Reiteration of strawman.



So it's better to adopt a 1980s stance? The RNAF is focused on survivability (LO and superior avionics), because that is the most cost-effective when shots are actually traded.

Anyways he seems to be of the old sprint & WVR dogfight school of A2A combat.

I think that Barth Eide, a norvegian government official, responded to John Bergs comments in a very good way. Unfortunately, this is only in norvegian. Anyone that want´s to translate? To sum up - all three (two) contenders meet the norvegian specification. All contenders have plus and minuses - stealth, speed, price etc

http://www.abcnyheter.no/node/70865

 

[Grand Danois]

I think that Barth Eide, a norvegian government official, responded to John Bergs comments in a very good way. Unfortunately, this is only in norvegian. Anyone that want´s to translate? To sum up - all three (two) contenders meet the norvegian specification. All contenders have plus and minuses - stealth, speed, price etc

http://www.abcnyheter.no/node/70865

Quite agree; horses for courses, pro et con, and all such...

Was a bit disenchanted by the premise and structure of Bergs opinions. However it looks as if I am out of the media loop and too late in the rebuttals. The article you posted explains it well. Btw, a systran like google translation works quite well. I found another release in English:

Top Brass and Politicians Agree on New Fighter Roles

(Source: Aftenposten; published July 24, 2008)

"A small country like Norway cannot afford more than one type of fighter aircraft. Unlike larger countries, we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of having specialized single role planes," says Espen Barth Eide, State Secretary in the Ministry of Defense.

He emphasizes that his comments agree with defense chief Sverre Diesen's advice about what the Government should consider when choosing the next fighter for the Norwegian Air Force.

"I recommend that an equal emphasis on four roles should be used when deciding which candidate to choose. The ability to attack an enemy is as important as peaceful surveillance of the Arctic," Diesen wrote in a letter to Defense Minister Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen last November. He wants a new fighter to be able, not only to maintain surveillance and territorial sovereignty, but also to attack targets both on the ground and in the air.

Daily newspaper Aftenposten earlier this week wrote that the purchasing specifications describe the main function of the new plane as the ability to destroy ground targets.

Defense analyst John Berg thinks that Diesen's letter indicates that the Norwegian Air Force chiefs want to buy the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and that they want to join America in operations against hostile countries in the Middle East.

Berg’s comments to Aftenposten have drawn fire from military circles. "Berg has no idea what he’s talking about. I’m surprised that a so-called defense analyst is able to cough up something so silly," says brigadier and former fighter pilot Per Eckholdt.

Barth Eide also rejects Berg’s analysis. "Our main priority is our own back yard. We are planning for the next 30-40 year period and no-one knows what challenges we may have to face in this period. In a worst case scenario our planes will have to do more than surveillance work. They will have to support our frigates, attack air and sea targets as well as a number of other tasks. The ability to attack ground targets is one of them," says Eide.

Berg disagrees, saying that his views mirror arguments among military analysts world-wide. He points to the fierce debate between US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the US Air Force top brass about whether the JSF has sufficient capabilities as a fighter.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cg...53632.g09V6n8AAAEAAECKXH4AAAAb&modele=release

If the information in the release is coupled with the concurrent withdrawal of the EF from the Danish competition, it seems that the reqts was not stacked in favour of the JSF.

Rather, it is matter of perception or perhaps creating perception of what's going on (eg that the jsf is a ground pounder only, that a jsf purchase will see the rnaf side by side with the yanks in future wars and thus the norwegian electorate is being decieved, and that norway is executing a disingeneous competition).

Btw, it has really sparked heated debate in Norway! LOL.

Anyways, since Denmark is capable of producing the full portfolio of combat aircraft components, maybe we should make our own. Could Norway be interested?

http://gizmodo.com/356469/giant-lego-b+1b-bomber-escorted-by-fighters-hawkeye-aircraft

 

[Vivendi]

Was a bit disenchanted by the premise and structure of Bergs opinions.

Agree!

If the information in the release is coupled with the concurrent withdrawal of the EF from the Danish competition, it seems that the reqts was not stacked in favour of the JSF.


Rather, it is matter of perception or perhaps creating perception of what's going on (eg that the jsf is a ground pounder only, that a jsf purchase will see the rnaf side by side with the yanks in future wars and thus the norwegian electorate is being decieved, and that norway is executing a disingeneous competition).

Yes...But. The description in Aviationweek (see my previous post) on being within range of all the double-digit SAMs having only GBU-31 and GBU-10/12 at your disposal... do you think that was a realistic or relevant scenario?

I agree that EF would have pulled out in any case (like they did in Denmark, and like they decided to not enter in Holland when recently invited). Still I find this particular scenario to be a bit ...peculiar?

Btw, it has really sparked heated debate in Norway! LOL.

Anyways, since Denmark is capable of producing the full portfolio of combat aircraft components, maybe we should make our own. Could Norway be interested?

http://gizmodo.com/356469/giant-lego-b+1b-bomber-escorted-by-fighters-hawkeye-aircraft

My God you are worse than China. Did you pay your licence fees or are those pirated aircrafts? Besides, I doubt Denmark will be able to offer us a relevant industrial package. Wait, we are building a composite factory specifically for manufacturing F-35 parts -- perhaps it could be adapted to manufacture parts for those fine Danish pirated planes?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/kongberg-wins-f35-contracts-maybe-02990/



V

 

[Grand Danois]

Agree!


Yes...But. The description in Aviationweek (see my previous post) on being within range of all the double-digit SAMs having only GBU-31 and GBU-10/12 at your disposal... do you think that was a realistic or relevant scenario?

The F-35 would clearly score better in an environment inside the radius of an S-300. However, Gripen NG scores better on others like TCO. As long as it does not exclude the jet. SAAB could point to tactics and weapons which suits the Gripen better.

The question is: If the bidders are compared across a large number of parameters as the article posted by dalregementet and the release I posted say, how come AvWeek and JP drags out this particular little snippet about GBUs inside S-300 radius? If this is only a small part of the qualification?

My God you are worse than China. Did you pay your licence fees or are those pirated aircrafts? Besides, I doubt Denmark will be able to offer us a relevant industrial package. Wait, we are building a composite factory specifically for manufacturing F-35 parts -- perhaps it could be adapted to manufacture parts for those fine Danish pirated planes?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/kongberg-wins-f35-contracts-maybe-02990/

V

Yes, there is still time to convert those 50,000 sqm to a giant LEGO block fighter jet check-out line. You could beat LM on sheer numbers.

In other news re JSF:

Davis added that negotiations on the second lot of low-rate initial production
aircraft “puts the numbers for those airplanes a little bit below even where ... the SAR shows they should be.” The LRIP II contract was subsequently announced on May 22, and provided $2.2 billion for 12 aircraft, lower than expected.
The cost drop occurred despite hefty spikes in the cost of raw materials, such as titanium.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2008/July 2008/0708lightning.pdf