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

[energo]

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

Sorry for not having the time for a translation. In essence Mr. Barth Eide is refuting any claims of secretative role redefinitions or any confusion as to the intended operational use of the new fighters.

In the following radio debate Mr. Barth Eide went as far as to say that Mr. Berg "has absolutely no idea what he is talking about", refering to the programme requirements and how the F-35 capabilities fit into this.

Basically, the the refered "secret letter" was partially missunderstood by several newspapers and thus taken out of context. The letter, which states that the A-G role has priority, relates to the preparations for a specific simulator run and beares no relevance to the operational priorities as a whole.

Infact the programme specifications have, from the very start years ago, quite clearly defined the next fighter type as multi role. There has never been any confusion or disagreements on this principle issue. Not by the millitary, the programme office, the defence ministry nor the political wings. The reasons for the multi role requirement have been well established and should not come as a surprise to anyone who've had a vested interest in this subject.

How Mr. Berg, a defence analyst, and the media failed to realise this is not immediately apparent. What seems apparent, however, is that Mr. Berg has out-played his role as a credible authority on the fighter programme. Claiming that the F-35 is nothing but an attack bomber is one thing, but to insiunuate that the RNoAF is favoring the F-35 simply to use it in offensive USA-led campaigns is well past the boundries of a rational debate.


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[Haavarla]

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


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?



True...


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.

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

Go easy on the Russian-Norwegian war scenario will u..:unknown
Russia need to stay well within the Norwegian side of prospective.
Cause u see, we have the offshore oil tec. that the Russian is tottaly dependet on if they ever gonna get things done up north in the Stockman region. The same can be said with the fishing control/doctrine, for decades the Norwegian have manage the law enforcment of the Barent sea in fishing issue.. The russian should be amicable and i'm sure thy are too.

Sadly the issue here is Terrorism and Nato mission(Afganistan) in the future..
Norway and Russia have allways maintained a good relationship, even back in the cold war..

 

[Vivendi]

Go easy on the Russian-Norwegian war scenario will u..:unknown
Russia need to stay well within the Norwegian side of prospective.
Cause u see, we have the offshore oil tec. that the Russian is tottaly dependet on if they ever gonna get things done up north in the Stockman region. The same can be said with the fishing control/doctrine, for decades the Norwegian have manage the law enforcment of the Barent sea in fishing issue.. The russian should be amicable and i'm sure thy are too.

Sadly the issue here is Terrorism and Nato mission(Afganistan) in the future..
Norway and Russia have allways maintained a good relationship, even back in the cold war..

Agree, today we have a very good relationship with Russia. However nobody can guarantee that things will not change. Most people were taken by surprise when Norway was invaded by the Germans during WW2; most people were surprised how fast the Soviet empire fell apart. Most people were surprised when planes chrashed into the twin towers and US invaded Afghanistan (well of course after the crashes people did expect such a reaction, but not before). So how can you be so sure that the currently good relationship between Russia and Norway will remain so the next 30-40 years?

If that's the case we don't need new fighter planes....Unless Denmark should turn imperialistic again of course... Perhaps GD can inform us more about that... Denmark already got Greenland, however maybe they plan to expand in the arctic region...? :devil


V

 

[Haavarla]

Agree, today we have a very good relationship with Russia. However nobody can guarantee that things will not change. Most people were taken by surprise when Norway was invaded by the Germans during WW2; most people were surprised how fast the Soviet empire fell apart. Most people were surprised when planes chrashed into the twin towers and US invaded Afghanistan (well of course after the crashes people did expect such a reaction, but not before). So how can you be so sure that the currently good relationship between Russia and Norway will remain so the next 30-40 years?

If that's the case we don't need new fighter planes....Unless Denmark should turn imperialistic again of course... Perhaps GD can inform us more about that... Denmark already got Greenland, however maybe they plan to expand in the arctic region...? :devil


V

Dude, chill with the second world war history, there will NOT be a new Hitler anytime soon..
No i never stated that we don't need new fighers in the future.
The main issue is the terrorism, u heard Obama's speech in germany. The USA can't fight Terrorism alone..

But to use Russia as reason to get new fighter planes, simply wont do.
The long term strategi of the North region has nothing to do with Russian dominance or threat. It is very likely we will see long term trade agreement and many jobbs on both side in the fishery and oil/gass field that we share up in the north region.
To mess up this oppertunity is stupid stupid and i for one don't think the Russian is stupid..

We need fighter's with range and speed, the F-35 got range and stealth, but not that great on speed. I think mission range is very important, specially in our wast sea region back home..
The stealth mode may come in handy in NATO mission tough..
But i'm not sure who's the best candidate for our Air force in the future.
The JAS is an impressive aircraft as well.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

We need fighter's with range and speed, the F-35 got range and stealth, but not that great on speed.

I've been over this many times before. Speed is not an issue. Top speed is 1200 mph which is just under Mach 2 by 120mph. You can't say the F/A-18 has speed issues can you? The F-15 has never gone past Mach 1.6 in combat missions and thats not an issue ether. I doubt the F-22 will ever need to go past Mach 1.58 in combat.

 

[Vivendi]

Dude, chill with the second world war history, there will NOT be a new Hitler anytime soon..
No i never stated that we don't need new fighers in the future.
The main issue is the terrorism, u heard Obama's speech in germany. The USA can't fight Terrorism alone..

But to use Russia as reason to get new fighter planes, simply wont do.
The long term strategi of the North region has nothing to do with Russian dominance or threat. It is very likely we will see long term trade agreement and many jobbs on both side in the fishery and oil/gass field that we share up in the north region.
To mess up this oppertunity is stupid stupid and i for one don't think the Russian is stupid..

We need fighter's with range and speed, the F-35 got range and stealth, but not that great on speed. I think mission range is very important, specially in our wast sea region back home..
The stealth mode may come in handy in NATO mission tough..
But i'm not sure who's the best candidate for our Air force in the future.
The JAS is an impressive aircraft as well.

I suggest you read the following:

http://www.oslomilsamfund.no/foredrag/2007/2007-11-26%20Forsvarssjefen.html

Den viktige og interessante konklusjon fra et militært ståsted er derfor at det i vår tid og i våre nærområder ikke kan ses bort fra begrensede militære operasjoner til støtte for politiske krav, eller anvendelse av militærmakt som del av en bredere politisk krisehåndtering.

My translation:

The important and interesting conclusion from a military point of view is therefore that it in our time and in our neighbourhood one cannot dismiss limited military operations as support for political demands, or use of military power as part of a broader political crisis handling.

These statements from Mr. Diesen caused quite a stir in Norwegian media -- the Norwegian Defence Minister however supported Mr. Diesens view.

As for Hitler: I was not referring to him specifically but to the "surprise attack" on Norway. I was simply giving three examples of historical events that caught "everybody" by surprise. I tried to explain to you that although things look nice and dandy now, they can change dramatically, and quite fast. In my opinion Russia is a country that has the potential to change fast. Hopefully it will change in a positive not negative direction.

Trying to get back to topic: I agree Gripen is Great however F-35 will be Fantastic(?). I really don't know which is best suited for Norway. I suggest Norway should delay the decision a couple of years, that would reduce the uncertainty around both alternatives and could perhaps bring back Typhoon (if they managed to get a decent T3 and some export orders that could bring down the price of that horribly expensive airplane).

V

 

[Vivendi]

I doubt the F-22 will ever need to go past Mach 1.58 in combat.

I strongly disagree.

In some specific combat cases the F-22 would need to go to Mach 1.587, which is definitely past Mach 1.58.



V

 

[rjmaz1]

I doubt the F-22 will ever need to go past Mach 1.58 in combat.

I agree with this.

People dont realise how fast Mach 1.5 is and how much fuel is required to sustain such a speed. Even the supercruising F-22 takes a massive hit in range when transiting at supersonic speeds compared to subsonic.

Travelling supersonic has been such rare occurances in previous wars. 3rd and 4th generation aircraft struggle to become supersonic with weapons as the range reduction is insane. It doesn't make sense. Its unrealistic to think the F-22 will be hitting high supersonic speeds in combat when previous aircraft could not even achieve low supersonic speeds on a regular basis.

The F-22 will easily outrun the enemy at only "slow" Mach 1.5. You have to remember the enemy may have fighters than can exceed Mach 2 but they take minutes to reach that speed and can only sustain it for a few seconds before running out of fuel. The F-22 advantage is it can reach high speed in seconds and sustain it for minutes. So it has a head start and can keep running for longer.

Top speed is not important, acceleration and endurance at moderate speed is what makes an aircraft fast.

 

[Ths]

Why will Norway buy the F-35?

After perusing 500 odd posts - with occational shrewd observations - it seems to me the entire purpose is missed.

The only relevant threat to Norway is Russia: It is the only power with reasonably modern weapons, trained personel and military infrastructure to be a threat. Al Qaida might put a bomb in an inconvinient place; but they cannot threatned the existence of Norway.
With that in place we can turn to the major headaches Russia gives Nato:

1. The nuclear subs at Murmansk.
2. The SS-20 missiles more or less at the same place.
3. The long range bombers that might interfere with the frigates controlling and eventually sinking said nuclear subs.
4. The possibility of a Russian carrier task force, with the task of forcing the way for the submarines.

ad 1) As long as these instruments of mass destruction exist, they will have a prominent role in any military planning. An option to knock out one or more of these boats preparing to set to sea will - at the very least - present a nasty planning problem for the Russian. Russia might protect the submarines in harbour; but it will be difficult and costly.
This mission demands range from Bodø with a bunker buster. This the F-35 can provide (hence the A-300 scenario) with a reasonable chance of getting away with it.
Both the Taifun and Gripen would be marginal in range - if violation of Swedish airspace is to be avoided. Surviveability with external armament is dubious - that air defence will be on its toes. Mission accomplishment equally dubious.

ad 2) The existence and the possibility of movement of the SS-20 is an important political parameter - not as much against Norway, but against former Soviet republics.
The movement will for practical reasons be restricted to very few roads/railways, these weapon can thus be found - given the disapperence is detected early - found and destroyed. This demands range - possibly with external fuel. The Gripen and the Taifun hardly has range/endurance for that mission - though it is probably the scenario where these planes are closest to meeting the requirement.

ad 3) The bombers will have the option of outflanking the Norwegean defence. This is a mission that requires range and possibly high cruise speeds and A2A weaponry. Here sustained speed could be of essense.

ad 4) The possibility of a Russian carrier poses 2 problems:
I) How to sink the carrier. Here I doubt the survivability of Gripen and Taifun, as they probably will have to carry fuel and armament externally and are subject to a successfull interception by fighters launched from the carrier as well as SAM's from the screen. The question is: Can the task force pass north of Svalbard? If it can (with the melting of the polar cap), there might be an argument for reviving Keflavik.
It is clear, that the Danish and Norwegean frigates are no match for a task force.
II) Air Defence between Iceland and Norway. It seems achieveable with F-35 with external tanks - just for good measure. Both Gripen and Taifun are marginal in this respect.
The real issue with 4 is that the alternative is reserving an US Task Force for operations north of the Fairisles - which at the best of times is a very costly operation - fraught with Congress interference.

Defence of the Norwegean realm proper is somewhat of a secondary priority, but not to be disregarded, as a logic countermeasure from Russia is to destroy Norwegean bases in a preemptive strike - this advocates AGAINST airfields closer to Russia.

Taifun's manufacturers has obviously concluded, that their product didn't cut it - as more details of the operational requirements percolated through.
Gripens main selling point - cost - isn't relevant, as in matters so vital to the security of the USA, there are ways around that problem. Compensations are not necessarily included in the contract.

 

[JohanGrön]

Trying to get back to topic: I agree Gripen is Great however F-35 will be Fantastic(?). I really don't know which is best suited for Norway. I suggest Norway should delay the decision a couple of years, that would reduce the uncertainty around both alternatives and could perhaps bring back Typhoon (if they managed to get a decent T3 and some export orders that could bring down the price of that horribly expensive airplane).

Not possible! Either you're in or you're out for hefty price penalties :

(h)ttp://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0708/index.php?startid=45

"Partners who do not buy according to the program of record will cover the costs incurred by other partners," says the Program Office director, Maj. Gen. Charles Davis.
Davis says the final price is the subject of intense discussions within the team, but numbers in the $58-63-million realm-flyaway prices in current dollars-have been mentioned. Given that local acquisition unit costs in export sales tend to be about twice the flyaway cost, this places the JSF unit cost close to that of Typhoon.

If a JSF partner decide to postpone their procurement then they are going to pay even more for the JSF than for that "horribly expensive airplane" that you named the Typhoon. :nutkick

 

[Haavarla]

After perusing 500 odd posts - with occational shrewd observations - it seems to me the entire purpose is missed.

The only relevant threat to Norway is Russia: It is the only power with reasonably modern weapons, trained personel and military infrastructure to be a threat. Al Qaida might put a bomb in an inconvinient place; but they cannot threatned the existence of Norway.
With that in place we can turn to the major headaches Russia gives Nato:

1. The nuclear subs at Murmansk.
2. The SS-20 missiles more or less at the same place.
3. The long range bombers that might interfere with the frigates controlling and eventually sinking said nuclear subs.
4. The possibility of a Russian carrier task force, with the task of forcing the way for the submarines.

ad 1) As long as these instruments of mass destruction exist, they will have a prominent role in any military planning. An option to knock out one or more of these boats preparing to set to sea will - at the very least - present a nasty planning problem for the Russian. Russia might protect the submarines in harbour; but it will be difficult and costly.
This mission demands range from Bodø with a bunker buster. This the F-35 can provide (hence the A-300 scenario) with a reasonable chance of getting away with it.
Both the Taifun and Gripen would be marginal in range - if violation of Swedish airspace is to be avoided. Surviveability with external armament is dubious - that air defence will be on its toes. Mission accomplishment equally dubious.

ad 2) The existence and the possibility of movement of the SS-20 is an important political parameter - not as much against Norway, but against former Soviet republics.
The movement will for practical reasons be restricted to very few roads/railways, these weapon can thus be found - given the disapperence is detected early - found and destroyed. This demands range - possibly with external fuel. The Gripen and the Taifun hardly has range/endurance for that mission - though it is probably the scenario where these planes are closest to meeting the requirement.

ad 3) The bombers will have the option of outflanking the Norwegean defence. This is a mission that requires range and possibly high cruise speeds and A2A weaponry. Here sustained speed could be of essense.

ad 4) The possibility of a Russian carrier poses 2 problems:
I) How to sink the carrier. Here I doubt the survivability of Gripen and Taifun, as they probably will have to carry fuel and armament externally and are subject to a successfull interception by fighters launched from the carrier as well as SAM's from the screen. The question is: Can the task force pass north of Svalbard? If it can (with the melting of the polar cap), there might be an argument for reviving Keflavik.
It is clear, that the Danish and Norwegean frigates are no match for a task force.
II) Air Defence between Iceland and Norway. It seems achieveable with F-35 with external tanks - just for good measure. Both Gripen and Taifun are marginal in this respect.
The real issue with 4 is that the alternative is reserving an US Task Force for operations north of the Fairisles - which at the best of times is a very costly operation - fraught with Congress interference.

Defence of the Norwegean realm proper is somewhat of a secondary priority, but not to be disregarded, as a logic countermeasure from Russia is to destroy Norwegean bases in a preemptive strike - this advocates AGAINST airfields closer to Russia.

Taifun's manufacturers has obviously concluded, that their product didn't cut it - as more details of the operational requirements percolated through.
Gripens main selling point - cost - isn't relevant, as in matters so vital to the security of the USA, there are ways around that problem. Compensations are not necessarily included in the contract.

Seems to me someone is still living in the cold war era..
I am in the Norwegian Navy, and i can tell you i thing for sure. The Russian threat picture today is gone. In the future it is very likely that there will be fish/food war and crises with others nations like we had with Island back in the 90's, and it will not be Russia..
It will be shortages of food, recources and energy that will be the BIG problem in the next century.
Norway and Russia share much of the same fish recouces in the barent sea witch by the way is the only place left in the world left with an healty Cod pedigree.
Much of the same reason we didn't join the EU, is because of we want the complete controll of our recources.
now, every contry

Russia will join rest of the next superpower nations in the future, consider their economic growt and the world largest natural recources in minerals, gass, oil and so on. Is it so sshocking that they have a big fleet?
Witch by the way is located up in the coast of Kola where the only conection they have to the Barent sea and atlantic.

Hell, we even aided the Russian with the scraping of their old navy and salvaging the much of the radioactive isotop's from their reactors. And safely storage of the radioactive waste.
We have funded several of their deterioating nuclear powerplant's, helping in securing them.
We aided the Russian with the Kursk acident.
We even funded some of the officers in the their army back in the 90's!

We resently had the world largest submarine rescue exercice(BOLD MONARC 2008) with the Russian at the south coast of Norway. It was a sucsess!

Many things have changed since the cold war, and so have the Russian.
Many people still have a repugnance of this fact. Those who don't adapt, and recognize the Terorrism today is in for a big suprise.
Did i mention 9/11..

so.. we need new combat aircraft that can participate in NATO conflict with the best spec. possible in the future.
I also think we should wait a couple of years and see the progress of the JSF and JAS.
I rest my case..

 

[Grand Danois]

If a JSF partner decide to postpone their procurement then they are going to pay even more for the JSF than for that "horribly expensive airplane" you named the Typhoon. :nutkick

You must pardon me for not spending half an hour looking for the documents, but if all partners cancelled their buys, UFC/UPC/WSC would increase by 3%, this is without the contribution to R&D, SDD. Yup, economies of scale are fairly easily reached inside the 2400 the US is going to buy. In total partner participation saves the US taxpayer of something like 13-15 bn USD (econ of scale plus direct payment), not counting the value of access to the can/euro/aust tech trees.

Wrt Russia. Russia has signed the UNCLOS and confirmed it will bide by the ruling of the UN Comittee and ultimately the arbitration in Hague.

Chances of mil conflict in the Barents or Arctic are slim to nil.

 

[JohanGrön]

Aim-120D

When will the AIM-120D be available for non US customers?

AFAIK the current AIM-120C7 will force the JSF to close to shorter distances to achieve an acceptable kill probability against an agile target that's using decoys and jamming.

 

[JohanGrön]

You must pardon me for not spending half an hour looking for the documents

Can't, and would not, force you

 

[Grand Danois]

When will the AIM-120D be available for non US customers?

AFAIK the current AIM-120C7 will force the JSF to close to shorter distances to achieve an acceptable kill probability against an agile target that's using decoys and jamming.

A target will have to know it is being attacked to be able to utilize agility and deploy countermeasures. Also the C-5/7 pole out aplenty today, so I'd like to know the specifics on the deficiencies of the current regime of AMRAAMs. Is this really so?

 

[swerve]

Taifun's manufacturers has obviously concluded, that their product didn't cut it - as more details of the operational requirements percolated through..

1. Ever heard the saying "once bitten, twice shy"? Eurofighter has experienced a "selection" process carried out solely to put pressure on the supplier which had already been selected, in Korea, & has decided (as has Dassault) not to waste its money, & valuable staff time, where it's obvious that a political decision has already been taken. Note that the Koreans couldn't get anyone except Boeing - not Dassault, not Eurofighter, not Lockheed Martin, not Sukhoi - to bid for their second fighter competition. They had to take Boeings terms. Same here. It's clear that Norways decision has been made. Saab may think it has a chance on price grounds, but everyone else has decided its another Korean scenario.

2. Why do you persist in calling Typhoon/Eurofighter "Taifun"? It is not its name, in any language. The English name "Typhoon" for it is not translated (the Germans, Italians & Spanish call it Eurofighter or "Typhoon"), & the Germans call theirs Eurofighters. "Tifón" or "Tifone" would be equally (in)valid, but you never use them. Why not? Hmm . . . maybe we should all do this . . we would have the Taifun, F-35 Blitz II & JAS39 Greif. :

 

[JohanGrön]

A target will have to know it is being attacked to be able to utilize agility and deploy countermeasures. Also the C-5/7 pole out aplenty today, so I'd like to know the specifics on the deficiencies of the current regime of AMRAAMs. Is this really so?

It's not a deficiency with the current regime of AMRAAMs per se but a unfortunate gap from that the JSF detects it's target(s) and to when it can fire the missile(s) with an acceptable kill probability. The F-35 (Blitz should detect targets at long range but have to close to shorter distances before firing. It must be a priority to lessen the sensor/missile gap as much as possible. At least for a fighter that solely depends on stealth for it's success. That was my point.

The AIM-120D is an acknowledgment of this "gap". An even balanced sensor/missile combination would make for a better fighter.

 

[Vivendi]

1. Ever heard the saying "once bitten, twice shy"? Eurofighter has experienced a "selection" process carried out solely to put pressure on the supplier which had already been selected, in Korea, & has decided (as has Dassault) not to waste its money, & valuable staff time, where it's obvious that a political decision has already been taken. Note that the Koreans couldn't get anyone except Boeing - not Dassault, not Eurofighter, not Lockheed Martin, not Sukhoi - to bid for their second fighter competition. They had to take Boeings terms. Same here. It's clear that Norways decision has been made. Saab may think it has a chance on price grounds, but everyone else has decided its another Korean scenario.

Agree, but not completely. Gripen may have a chance for political reasons. The current centre-left government may surprise the US and their own DoD and go for the Swedish alternative. However you (and Eurofighter) is probably right in that the Typhoon had no real chances of winning. Gripen however may win.



V

 

[Vivendi]

Not possible! Either you're in or you're out for hefty price penalties :

(h)ttp://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0708/index.php?startid=45



If a JSF partner decide to postpone their procurement then they are going to pay even more for the JSF than for that "horribly expensive airplane" that you named the Typhoon. :nutkick

Well I wrote "delay the decision" not the purchase...

AFAIK we will take delivery of the first plane in 2016. So why do we need to decide in 2008!? Why not 2010? Should still be plenty of time to get the contracts ready...

And stop kicking, it hurts...


V

 

[JohanGrön]

Well I wrote "delay the decision" not the purchase...

AFAIK we will take delivery of the first plane in 2016. So why do we need to decide in 2008!? Why not 2010? Should still be plenty of time to get the contracts ready...

And stop kicking, it hurts...


V

Ah, sorry my bad! Not my intention to hurt
But I really think that LockMart want to force their foreign partners to make their stances in the near future.