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

[Ths]

Precisely

Grand Danois: There is a reason Denmark and other nations have paid quite a lot of money for the participation. To ensure the requirements of our potential scenarios were incorporated. Not that they are in contradiction to the US requirements, but if not thought of in time, they would be difficult to correct later.

 

[Grand Danois]

Grand Danois: There is a reason Denmark and other nations have paid quite a lot of money for the participation. To ensure the requirements of our potential scenarios were incorporated. Not that they are in contradiction to the US requirements, but if not thought of in time, they would be difficult to correct later.

I don't see any Danish reqmts that aren't covered by the US reqmts. And the question is how much influence you have with a 150 mn USD (plus some) contribution to a 40 bn USD R&D + SDD project.

The Norwegians did get their drag chute for icy airfields and a potential integration of the NSM/JSM - which could easily become big business if it is to be the only internally carried AShM on the F-35.

 

[swerve]

Consider how much - or rather little - influence the UK has got for more than ten times that contribution. We asked for sufficient access to source code to integrate our own weapons (note that this had been one of the terms of our original agreement to participate), & were basically told to get lost. While arguing this one, we pursued the parallel course of trying to get the Yanks to schedule integration, & found that it would be done at their convenience (probably not for many years), would require the manufacturers of the weapons to give full disclosure of technical data to US competitors, & we'd have to pay the Yanks whatever they asked for to do it. This led to a row in which we started talking about pulling out of the programme, & the Yanks eventually ameliorated their demands - but we don't know by how much, since the terms agreed have not been published.

The weapons in question had US competitors, unlike NSM (Asraam/AIM-9X, Storm Shadow/JASSM, etc.), & it would appear obvious that the more accommodating attitude of the USA to NSM is related to it filling a gap in the US inventory. But the statements made at the time on the US side were unequivocal: as far as they were concerned, our money bought us a commercial share, nothing else. They were vehemently opposed to incorporating anything into the aircraft not required by the USA, unless it would have no impact on what the US wanted, & make the aircraft easer to export. No parallel versions would be tolerated. The UK was told that what it wanted (remember, this was what we were originally offered) was tantamount to sabotaging the programme.

 

[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.

is that so..
i just thought your argument (that you refused to back up) was pathetic.

you actually believe, Norwegians take an agressive operation against russian subM bases under serious consideration, regarding their purchase of a new airforce fleet??

and you feel entitled to use that as an argument to buy F-35?
1. you dont have enough knowledge about the platforms and their capabilities.
2, Norway or Denmark for that sake. will NEVER attack Russia. if, it will be as support for US.
3. you dont think other things might be more important, to evaluate??
4, Russia aint the enemy..

BTW,
you've plenty of other advantages you can use, to support your bird (F-35)

handshake and let us continue the debate

 

[swerve]

All military planning takes the military capability of a potential opponent as basis, not their intentions.

Not so. It may be true that all military planning should be based on the military capability of a potential opponent, rather then their intentions, but it is certainly not always true that it does. The most cursory study of military history will turn up many cases of mistaken assumptions about intentions, causing capabilities to be discounted.

A few modern examples: the Falklands, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Yom Kippur war, the Korean war, the 1974 coup in Cyprus, the Kargil incident.

 

[Vivendi]

is that so..
i just thought your argument (that you refused to back up) was pathetic.

you actually believe, Norwegians take an agressive operation against russian subM bases under serious consideration, regarding their purchase of a new airforce fleet??

Since Ths said he would not respond to your posts I risk adding my comments:

The Norwegian Government had defined four requirements the fighters must fulfill (rought translation from Norwegian):

1. They should be used as fighter planes in traditional a2a

2. They should be able to do surveillance of large areas and collect "sophisticated" information from the same areas

3. They shall give support to ground forces and be able to work together with other arms of the military

4. In addition they should be able to go deep. This means that if Norway is being attacked we will have the possibility to attack deep inside the attackers own area.

Instead of arguing whether we think a Norwegian attack on Russia is realistic or not, I suggest that such discussions are not relevant and a bit OT. Instead I make the simple observation that the customer (the Norwegian government) has defined a2g "deep inside the attackers own area" as one of four main requirements for the new aircraft. Therefore Ths scenario of Norway attacking submarines bases in Murmansk seems relevant for this discussion.

Vivendi

 

[zeven]

Vivandi.

Sorry, but i can't agree, and i'll defend my view here, when ever it comes up.
I'm well aware of the requirements set by Norway. and the latest one, have been deeply debated in Norway lately, because Norway's Doctotrin does not agree with this..

and what Norway actaully means, the air craft must be able to support Nato in overseas operations. like those in A-stan. Russia have nothing to do with this.

second.
this as you so nicely pin pointed out. goes under Norway's requirements, something. Norway, have said multiply times that both platforms passed and fullfilled all the requirements set by Norway. So it shouldnt be a question of which platform who's the best, but best suited for norway's NEEDS, huge difference.

luckley, weapon system purchase like this are a bit more complicated than just comapre to fact sheets against eachother. and because a platform is older than another, it doesnt mean its an inferior platform. it can still do what it was designed to do. out its lifetime.

 

[Waterfestival93]

Maybe not JSF for Norway?

Hi I´m new to this forum. Have read most of earlier posts, many arguments are repeated. Thats natural since it´s a very long thread. Here are my thoughts regarding JSF and Norway; You have probably already read this from Bill Sweetman, aviationweek ARES blog:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...fice Makes Buyers an Offer They Cannot Refuse

Interesting. Maybe the JSF will not be as "cheap" as some people have hoped, and LO/Stealth profiles will not be same for all customers? Maybe top notch just for US/UK/Italy? Where does that leave Norway and Denmark? Without superior LO/Stealth the whole idea of JSF is just lost.

LO/Stealth configuration of today (F-22 / JSF) may not be that bullet proof in the next decade when deliveries of JSF have begun. As far as I have understood the concept of obervability, it also includes IR, sound, and visual parameters. Not just radar visibility. Not just front radar cross section. There are actually other angles and a large plane is just that, a large plane.
There is (was?) research going into technology that aims to obsolete radar stealth of today. Probably not just in Sweden but also in Russia and several allied NATO nations. This report is from Sweden:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,157743,00.html

As I see it the available statistics puts Gripen NG ahead of JSF in Air to Air performance; Higher T/W, and with that probably higher acceleration. Lower wing loading, and therefore most likely better turn performance. The JSF have never been intended as an Air to Air fighter, just as then JSF Project Director George Muellner described in 1995.

Gripen NG will be powered by GE F414G with thrust of 98kN, and Gripen NG´s Thrust/Weight (with 50% fuel) is ca 1.15 which is quite good. Evolution of the F414G will probably increase thrust by 20%, or by some sources up to 130kN.
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20060717b.html
That will increase Gripen NG Thrust/Weight so it is second to none but F-22.

When it comes to Air to Air armament it seems that Gripen NG will have superior weaponry compared to JSF with BVR METEOR missiles, (that do not fit into JSF internal Air to Air weapons bay), and WVR IRIS-T missiles. Both missiles aim to be superior to US AMRAAM and Sidewinders that will go on JSF. Both planes will have HMD´s.

The Gripen AESA will most likely not be as good as the AESA on JSF. Remains to be seen how much that will hurt in the end. Some say that dogfight is obsolete. If so, why do any fighter jet have guns? And that goes for F-22 alike.

The discussion in Norway is around this strike - or not strike - priority. Is it air policing or is it Air to Ground bomb missions in other countries that will be prioritized in Norway? And that goes for Denmark to, although they are more of a chihuahua lap dog and politics will play a key part in the Danish decision. No pun intended

 

[Grand Danois]

Hi I´m new to this forum. Have read most of earlier posts, many arguments are repeated. Thats natural since it´s a very long thread. Here are my thoughts regarding JSF and Norway; You have probably already read this from Bill Sweetman, aviationweek ARES blog:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...fice Makes Buyers an Offer They Cannot Refuse

Interesting. Maybe the JSF will not be as "cheap" as some people have hoped, and LO/Stealth profiles will not be same for all customers? Maybe top notch just for US/UK/Italy? Where does that leave Norway and Denmark? Without superior LO/Stealth the whole idea of JSF is just lost.

~58 mn USD a pop, no increase in unit cost since 2006 (IIRC).

Bill Sweetman bases his speculations on reduced partner VLO on that George Standridge refers the question to the LO/CLO EXCOM, which Standridge, in his position, should do, IMV.

Moreover, there is no longer any serious doubt that not all F-35s will be equal in stealth. Asked earlier this year to confirm that all would have the same signatures, George Standridge, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for business development, responded: “That is a matter for the U.S. government. I cannot and will not answer that question.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...fice Makes Buyers an Offer They Cannot Refuse

It could be that Sweetman knows more, but he has not published it and above does not indicate reduced partner VLO. Just that the subject is deferred to said commitee.

Heck, there are even indications that the Norwegians got the full VLO rqmt written down in their MOU.

Here is a quote from May 2006 by Col Richard Harris (negotiating the JSF with the Norwegians on behalf of the US govt), not solid but worth a thought:

NO. Guarentees in the JSF partnership and numerous Memorandums of Understanding between governments ensure that there is no "lite" version of the JSF for Norway.


http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/05/01/464964.html

LO/Stealth configuration of today (F-22 / JSF) may not be that bullet proof in the next decade when deliveries of JSF have begun. As far as I have understood the concept of obervability, it also includes IR, sound, and visual parameters. Not just radar visibility. Not just front radar cross section. There are actually other angles and a large plane is just that, a large plane.

LO for the F-35 is also IR and visual. It's all-round signature management. RF LO for the F-35 is not only "front".

There is (was?) research going into technology that aims to obsolete radar stealth of today. Probably not just in Sweden but also in Russia and several allied NATO nations. This report is from Sweden: http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20060717b.html

I don't think you intended to post this URL. I do note that everybody is scrambling to catch up with US LO, which is obviously on the path of obsolescence (sorry, sarcasm).

As I see it the available statistics puts Gripen NG ahead of JSF in Air to Air performance; Higher T/W, and with that probably higher acceleration. Lower wing loading, and therefore most likely better turn performance. The JSF have never been intended as an Air to Air fighter, just as then JSF Project Director George Muellner described in 1995.

Incredibly that "30%" will make it the second most lethal fighter around.

Gripen NG will be powered by GE F414G with thrust of 98kN, and Gripen NG´s Thrust/Weight (with 50% fuel) is ca 1.15 which is quite good. Evolution of the F414G will probably increase thrust by 20%, or by some sources up to 130kN.
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20060717b.html
That will increase Gripen NG Thrust/Weight so it is second to none but F-22.

When it comes to Air to Air armament it seems that Gripen NG will have superior weaponry compared to JSF with BVR METEOR missiles, (that do not fit into JSF internal Air to Air weapons bay), and WVR IRIS-T missiles. Both missiles aim to be superior to US AMRAAM and Sidewinders that will go on JSF. Both planes will have HMD´s.

Above all, first you win the information battle.

The Gripen AESA will most likely not be as good as the AESA on JSF. Remains to be seen how much that will hurt in the end. Some say that dogfight is obsolete. If so, why do any fighter jet have guns? And that goes for F-22 alike.

The discussion in Norway is around this strike - or not strike - priority. Is it air policing or is it Air to Ground bomb missions in other countries that will be prioritized in Norway? And that goes for Denmark to, although they are more of a chihuahua lap dog and politics will play a key part in the Danish decision. No pun intended

"Buy American and you're a lap dog..." Right.

Guns have been covered in other threads. I do note that B and C versions do not carry an internal gun.

 

[cobzz]

Waterfestival93,

Meteor is not necessarily better than the AMRAAM-D. Depending on who you listen to it has a 180km range, 50% increase over C-7 & AESA in the nose. Aim-9x block 2 adds LOAL so in the future it can be cleared for the F-35 internal bay...

 

[longbow]

Vivandi.
Sorry, but i can't agree, and i'll defend my view here, when ever it comes up.
I'm well aware of the requirements set by Norway. and the latest one, have been deeply debated in Norway lately, because Norway's Doctotrin does not agree with this..

The armed forces of Norway(and most other countries) is ment to act as a deterrent. To have a capability is not the same as actually doing it. What you are saying is that you know better than the Norwegian armed forces and department of defence. Could your visdom be painted by the fact that the mentioned requirement is fulfilled by F-35 and not by Gripen?

 

[Waterfestival93]

Grand Danois:
How do you define "the second most lethal fighter around"? Is that a all around grade, or regarding Air to Air?
I doubt the JSF is as agile as Gripen/Gripen NG. It is a lot heavier, not higher T/W, and does have higher wing loading according to avalable statistics. I don´t understand how that would make a more agile Air to Air fighter. JSF will have LO, but detection is from several co-operating sources incl AWACS, ground radar etc. That info would be linked to Gripens on the ground and/or in the air. IR-profile of exhaust from a very powerful F135/F136 engine will not be invisible, no matter radar absorbing material on the vings and fuselage.

 

[Grand Danois]

Grand Danois:
How do you define "the second most lethal fighter around"? Is that a all around grade, or regarding Air to Air?
I doubt the JSF is as agile as Gripen/Gripen NG. It is a lot heavier, not higher T/W, and does have higher wing loading according to avalable statistics. I don´t understand how that would make a more agile Air to Air fighter. JSF will have LO, but detection is from several co-operating sources incl AWACS, ground radar etc. That info would be linked to Gripens on the ground and/or in the air. IR-profile of exhaust from a very powerful F135/F136 engine will not be invisible, no matter radar absorbing material on the vings and fuselage.

If you loose the information battle, WVR will do you no good.

The exhaust only account for a fraction of the unmasked IR signature (~1/3?) and is hidden by LO methods like shielding it from view and mixing with surrounding air.

 

[Ths]

Precisely

I don't see any Danish reqmts that aren't covered by the US reqmts. And the question is how much influence you have with a 150 mn USD (plus some) contribution to a 40 bn USD R&D + SDD project.

The Norwegians did get their drag chute for icy airfields and a potential integration of the NSM/JSM - which could easily become big business if it is to be the only internally carried AShM on the F-35.

That is the advantage of being involved at a very early point in time.

Possibly the US requirements at the outset was more than adequate, but it is a good idea to make certain.

 

[harryriedl]

If you loose the information battle, WVR will do you no good.

The exhaust only account for a fraction of the unmasked IR signature (~1/3?) and is hidden by LO methods like shielding it from view and mixing with surrounding air.

The images of BF-F also indicate that the exhausts have some sort of masking or reduction of its IR

 

[F-15 Eagle]

It seems to be scheduled at that point in the development spiral, in block 5. As Norway would get block 4/5 they should be able to use this config. I for one, don't see why US wouldn't export the D version of the AMRAAM.

I know but will the U.S. get the block 5 versions of the F-35 in the spiral development process once its ready?

 

[Grand Danois]

I know but will the U.S. get the block 5 versions of the F-35 in the spiral development process once its ready?

How would I know?

I'll reverse the question: In that year up to 200 F-35 will come off the production line - block 5s - and only a fraction will be to the partners. Which block do you think the US will get?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Grand Danois:
How do you define "the second most lethal fighter around"? Is that a all around grade, or regarding Air to Air?
I doubt the JSF is as agile as Gripen/Gripen NG. It is a lot heavier, not higher T/W, and does have higher wing loading according to avalable statistics. I don´t understand how that would make a more agile Air to Air fighter. JSF will have LO, but detection is from several co-operating sources incl AWACS, ground radar etc. That info would be linked to Gripens on the ground and/or in the air. IR-profile of exhaust from a very powerful F135/F136 engine will not be invisible, no matter radar absorbing material on the vings and fuselage.

The F-35 is as agile as the F-16 so thats means just as good as the Gripen/Gripen NG. T/W is very good because of the F135/136 of 40,000lbs thrust. The F-35 also has a slightly lower wing loading than the F-16 and weight has nothing to do with it if it has a powerful enough engine which it does. The F-35 will be no worst than the F-16/F-15 and Gripen/Gripen NG in ACM so I don't know were you get your info from.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

How would I know?

I'll reverse the question: In that year up to 200 F-35 will come off the production line - block 5s - and only a fraction will be to the partners. Which block do you think the US will get?

The block 5 then......

 

[Grand Danois]

The block 5 then......

Just FYI. The block 4/5 haven't been defined yet. The presentation lays out the anticipated developments for those blocks.