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

[Dalregementet]

Precisely my point: The Gripen, though a good plane, doesn't cut it.

Are there any airfields worth mentioning north of Bodø?

I think you are obsessed that Gripen is a plane that doesn´t match the Norwegian requirements. The Norwegians themselves have said that all planes meet the Norwegian requirements, i.e. also the range requirement. In the latest issue of Military Technology, is said that the F35 was now 27% more expensive per unit than anticaipated, i.e. a unit price of 90 MUSD per plane. And I promise you that that price will increase even further, at least 10% since the plane is not ready yet. So how much is the extra capability that F35 has worth in comparrisson with other alternatives? It can be that Gripen in conjuction with additional weaponry can solve the tasks?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thx AD!

I have a question about range increase with external tanks in general on fighter jets :

Why is the increase in range with additional external tanks only a measly 8% (~8,17%) for the F-35 (with the aforementioned weapons load)? Is that normal for that category of aircraft?

It just seems to be too little or is it because the internal tanks are so massive it becomes a "mathematical delusion"?

I have heard that C-130 with external tanks adds almost no increase in range! That must be due to the extra drag I guess?

Precisely. The drag increases to a point where it gets counter-productive to add additional tanks on particular aircraft.

I'd be amazed for instance if we ever saw more than 2x external drop tanks on an F-35, even for ferry flights...

 

[Vivendi]

From what I've read LM has offered offsets that might amount to a maximum of $2 billion until 2035 (but no guarantees, since LM wants competition based on price and quality of the products) and Saab has offered guaranteed offsets of $9 billion in a timespan of 15 years.
So Saab offers guarantees offsets of about 180% of the acquisition, while LM offers the possibility of about 40%.

While I think the AF should not (and probably will not) bother with the economical side of it, I'm sure Parliament will.

Can any Norwegian explain me what it is likely that Parliament will do (if the above is indeed correct)?

AFAIK, LM has indicated that deals that adds up to roughly 100% of the acquisition price would be offered assuming that Norway buys F-35, not 40% as you say above.

Saab has offered offsets of 180% of their acquisition price.

It is not clear what the Norwegian government/parliament will do. I wrote a piece on this in this thread some months ago offering one view, Energo wrote anothe piece later on, offering a differing view. Since I wrote that post I have changed my position slightly, more toward what Energo wrote in his reply. Although Saab offers an overall better offset deal than LM, the LM deal is also very good. One difference between the two offset deals is that AFAIK the Saab deal covers other areas than defence whereas the LM offset deal is within the defence sector only. So if you look at this from a defence industry point of view the deals may be almost the same size. I don't think the offset deal will be the factor that will determine the outcome, but I could of course be wrong.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=141175&postcount=377

Energo's reply:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=141249&postcount=380


V

PS I apologize for some of the bad language in my post 377 -- I will improve.

 

[Grand Danois]

Unit fly-away cost for the F-35 is currently in the 58-63 mn USD (2008) range. 97 mn USD is 2035 dollars (as I understand it).

 

[gvg]

Thanks for the quick replies.

Can anyone point me to links about the offer from LM to Norway. I am searching for one that includes something about the amount of offsets, because (apart from the link mentioning 40%, which apparently is incorrect) I can only find things about the offer from Saab.

No problem if the link is Norwegian (read: Bokmål).

 

[Vivendi]

Can anyone point me to links about the offer from LM to Norway. I am searching for one that includes something about the amount of offsets, because (apart from the link mentioning 40%, which apparently is incorrect) I can only find things about the offer from Saab.

The 40% qoute may have been correct -- at one point in time. AFAIK LM presented the new and improved offset offer very recently; either this week or last week.

http://tv2nyhetene.no/article2116884.ece

Saab presenterte et forslag til et omfattende industrisamarbeid med norske bedrifter dersom Norge velger å kjøpe JAS-Gripen-flyene. De lokket norske myndigheter med et industrisamarbeid verdt 50 milliarder norske kroner, fordelt på rundt 150 bedrifter i alle landets fylker.
...
Vi kan ikke gi dere de eksakte tallene, men det vi kan si er at avtalen vil overstige verdien av kjøpet, sier Dana B. Pierce [Lockheed Martin].

Det kan bety en industriavtale verdt i overkant av 20 milliarder kroner.

My rough translation:

Saab presented a proposal to a comprehensive indystry cooperation with Norwegian companies if Norway choose to buy the JAS-Gripen planes. They "tempted" the Norwegian government with industry offsets worth 50 billion Norwegian krones, distributed across 150 companies from all the counties in Norway.
....
"We cannot give you the exact numbers but what we can tell you is that the [value of the] agreement will be larger than the value of the purchase", says Dana B. Pierce [of Lockheed Martin]. This could mean an agreement worth a bit above 20 billion kroner.

AFAIK the LM offer on 48 F-35 is a bit below 20 billion NOK; the offer for 48 Gripen qouted in Norwegian media is 23 billion NOK; however the numbers are not comparable since the Swedish offer includes more than just the planes. It is not clear to me what is included; one newspaper said that "spare parts, simulators, training, manuals, and computer helmets are included. Weapons are not included."
See: http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2008/04/30/534028.html

It is not clear what the LM offer of slightly less than 20 billion includes, the same newspaper says regarding the LM offer that "life time costs like training and maintainence is not included".

I have to admit I could not work out the math for the Swedish offer... 50 billion seems to be more than 180% of 23 billion? However this article does quote 50 billion offset and 180%:
http://e24.no/makro-og-politikk/article2572993.ece

The industry cooperation will cover at least 180% of purchase order in a period of 10 to 15 years, if Norway buys Gripen.

Perhaps somebody can clarify that mystery? Is it me or the journalist? Or has the price of Gripen increased?


V

 

[Ths]

That is precisely what I mean by steaching it!

If You have a plan to attack the largest Russian submarine base, you better make it realistic.

If You attack Murmansk, it would perhaps be a very good idea to keep the russian in the dark when approaching target - or you will get clobbered, as even the most feeble minded russian commander might suspect you could have desires in that direction - thus no strategic surprise.

This means no external armament, as a lowlevel approach is perhaps not such a good idea today:
1 fuel/range wise.
2 newer radar systems.

Thus Gripen with external weapons and fuel will not accomplish such a mission, as it would result in them getting killed BEFORE they reach the target.
The F-35 might concieveably accomplish such a mission.

Why buy the Gripen: It cannot do the job, whereas F-35 might.

On paper the Gripens range is sufficient - but only by streaching the assumptions. The F-35 doesn't have to

Aircraft and other military hardware is bought with a set of plans in mind - rarely the other way round.

 

[Ths]

Super Hornet

http://jp.dk/arkiv/?id=1295573&eceExpr=Boeing"%20/>&eceArchive=o

For those of You that reads Danish.

The gist of it is that Boeing has submitted an offer for the Super Hornet of 240 mio. DKK a piece.
The budget for 48 planes is 1,3 bio DKK, which translates roughly into 260 mio pr Lightning II.

I hope to god, we have fixed the price with the yanks in USD a couple of years ago.

 

[Grand Danois]

http://jp.dk/arkiv/?id=1295573&eceExpr=Boeing"%20/>&eceArchive=o

For those of You that reads Danish.

The gist of it is that Boeing has submitted an offer for the Super Hornet of 240 mio. DKK a piece.
The budget for 48 planes is 1,3 bio DKK, which translates roughly into 260 mio pr Lightning II.

I hope to god, we have fixed the price with the yanks in USD a couple of years ago.

No, they are not referring to a quoted figure for the SH, but a generic public figure of ~50 mn USD.

http://forsvaret.dk/FKO/Nyt+og+Presse/Øvrige+nyheder/Boeing+afgiver+bud+på+nyt+kampfly.htm

The acqusition budget is closer to 4+ bn USD or 20+ bn DKK. Perhaps even as high as 5 bn USD.

 

[swerve]

The budget for 48 planes is 1,3 bio DKK, which translates roughly into 260 mio pr Lightning II.

I hope to god, we have fixed the price with the yanks in USD a couple of years ago.

Not possible. The yanks have only this year started talking about the possibility of fixing the price. IIRC, they can't be exported for less than what the US DoD pays, & that hasn't been fixed yet.

 

[Ths]

Thanks for the information

Grand Danois

 

[Haavarla]

If You have a plan to attack the largest Russian submarine base, you better make it realistic.

If You attack Murmansk, it would perhaps be a very good idea to keep the russian in the dark when approaching target - or you will get clobbered, as even the most feeble minded russian commander might suspect you could have desires in that direction - thus no strategic surprise.

This means no external armament, as a lowlevel approach is perhaps not such a good idea today:
1 fuel/range wise.
2 newer radar systems.

Thus Gripen with external weapons and fuel will not accomplish such a mission, as it would result in them getting killed BEFORE they reach the target.
The F-35 might concieveably accomplish such a mission.

Why buy the Gripen: It cannot do the job, whereas F-35 might.

On paper the Gripens range is sufficient - but only by streaching the assumptions. The F-35 doesn't have to

Aircraft and other military hardware is bought with a set of plans in mind - rarely the other way round.

Those calculations are pretty lame..
I don't know why peope always get in to those tings.
Norway isn't totally dependent on a fighter with that kind of capability(stealth).
It is a sweet bonus, yes..
What we do need mission range, and a lot of it, we have a long coast!
Some speed wouldn't hurt too.
And a Fighter that's gonna be ready 100% in the next decade.

U see, Norway allways bet on diplomacy. In fact that is some of the few things we are good at.
So.. all the talking about attacking this and that is... well, not the right thing to do..
cheers!

 

[Dalregementet]

If You have a plan to attack the largest Russian submarine base, you better make it realistic.

If You attack Murmansk, it would perhaps be a very good idea to keep the russian in the dark when approaching target - or you will get clobbered, as even the most feeble minded russian commander might suspect you could have desires in that direction - thus no strategic surprise.

This means no external armament, as a lowlevel approach is perhaps not such a good idea today:
1 fuel/range wise.
2 newer radar systems.

Thus Gripen with external weapons and fuel will not accomplish such a mission, as it would result in them getting killed BEFORE they reach the target.
The F-35 might concieveably accomplish such a mission.

Why buy the Gripen: It cannot do the job, whereas F-35 might.

On paper the Gripens range is sufficient - but only by streaching the assumptions. The F-35 doesn't have to

Aircraft and other military hardware is bought with a set of plans in mind - rarely the other way round.

I have a hard time understanding the scenario... Is Norway alone against Russia or is Nato also involved? Is "flying over the target" the right approach or do you use stand off weapons? The typical approach, being used in the -91 gulf war is that you first take out enemy radars, tripple A weapons and the air force, then after that, you go for the "general" land attack. Also in that war, stealt planes was used initially, then we air superiority was achieved, all types of planes could be used more freely. So again. what's the scenario?

 

[Ths]

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

That was the original question.

Dalregementet and haavarla, if you don't get it by now, there's no idea in elaborating.

The short answer to the question is: No!

 

[hugin]

Boeing offers F18 to Denmark 3 days before date line.

Boeing offers F18 to Denmark 3 days before date line. $ 50 mio. pr. aircraft.


http://www.forsvarskanalen.dk/fmc.aspx?bhcp=1

this is only in Danish, sorry

http://forsvaret.dk/FKO/Nyt+og+Presse/Øvrige+nyheder/Boeing+afgiver+bud+på+nyt+kampfly.htm

 

[zeven]

That was the original question.

Dalregementet and haavarla, if you don't get it by now, there's no idea in elaborating.

The short answer to the question is: No!

Ehm yes you need to elaborate, your previous post. because it was so damn kindergarden lame quote, that is hard to take you serious.

1. do you actually believe Norway, will attack russia??
2, you think war is black and white? it far more things you need to take into consideration. in a senario like that. You cant after reading some info about the platforms tell how it will end. you do not have all knowledge because its highly classified in Gripen NGs case. and F-35 aint even oparational yet, neverless you don't have the proper knowledage to anylise the information, not to mentione how to plan and execute an oparation against Russian military bases. and because of F-35 enterence, all other plattforms are obsolete?

3,you think stealth is the holy grale? and that Gipen wouldnt be able to pull off an assignment like that? please elaborate. just because of external weaponbays?

please from now on, keep your armchair opnions to yourself. and try to be more serious..

I'm not saying Gripen is the right choice, maybe F-35 is.
but if we look at Norways requirements, militarybudget. and by looking backwards. i believe Gripen are equal as good choice for Norway. both platforms have advantages and disavantages, will be up to Norway to decide what they see as most important. but i can tell you. attacking Russia aint one of them.
btw.
Gripen passed all the requirements.

 

[zeven]

i need to add a couple of things.

first of all. you should always compare A/C against the certain requirements each country has. not A/C to A/C

some things that put these platforms apart. that might be intersting from Norway's point of view.

Gripen
mature plattfom.
rear cockpit for shared workload.
mach 2 and supercruise - faster interception
LOW LCC, LOW maintaince, LOW fuel costs.
designed with an antiship role in mind from start.
greater benefits for Norwegian industry.
Norway can uppgrade,add/change. and custome made the plattform, in an easier way.
engine program with huge grow potential, seen from previous programs. and high reliability.

F-35 have a lot of advantages too. some obvious
stealth. always a plus (except from maintaince)
America (strong close relationship and NATO)
F-35 will be produced in far more units.
superior workload.
DAS,EOTS CNI,EWS impressive combination of tactical and tele warfare.

(we just have to wait and see what Gripen NG will be equiped with, but the new BOW,EWS39,vid-datalinks/TIDLS/IRST) might be more than enough)

technology speaking. i'm not so sure f-35 will be superior. not when we look at the final result, and how both platforms will do their job..

F-35s primary systems are already developed. except from minor parts.
Gripens NGs are still under developement. and highly classified information so far. what we saw in the Demo version. are not the final product that will be operatenal in Gripen NG.

 

[zeven]

THS
and for the record.

In the end, it all comes down to what kind of weapon and EW configuration you have at any given time, tactics,support not to mention the pilot.

 

[Ths]

Thank You Zeven

Thank You for your condecending lecture, which You find yourself qualified to dish out.

All military planning takes the military capability of a potential opponent as basis, not their intentions.
When You, Dalregementet, Proud Swede and the odd Norwegean have uderstood that very basic proporsition, then there is basis for a discussion. Until then You are not entitled to an answer.

 

[Grand Danois]

F-35s primary systems are already developed. except from minor parts.

The design concept of the F-35 was frozen a few years ago (can't remember the exact year). The technologies aren't fully developed before the FPR (full production review) which will take place late 2012 early 2013. If you apply the same terminology to the Gripen NG, the design concept was "frozen" 2007/2008 and "FPR" (just before IOC) will take place at about the same time as the F-35.

Just as the F-35 technologies have been underway for a time, the Swedes have also have had their gestation time. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to build the jet.