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

[JohanGrön]

The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee eliminates five JSFs up until 2010 thus threatening to disrupt the start of the ramp-up in production(?) and keeping the F-22 line warm for the next administration(?).

Title III – Procurement: $101.8 billion
Aircraft
---------
• Fully funds seven Joint Cargo Aircraft for the Army
• Supports funding for 10 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters
• Provides the requested number of UH-60 Black Hawk and CH-47 Chinook
helicopters, and adds 8 UH-72 Lakota
• Extends for an additional year a restriction on the transfer of authority from the Army over certain tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, and requires certification of cost savings before merging the Predator and Sky Warrior UAV programs
• Funds the request for 23 F/A-18E/F and 22 EA-18G aircraft
• Fully funds the V-22 program
• Defers 2 UH-1Y aircraft due to production delays
• Funds procurement of 2 E-2D aircraft, a deferral of 1 aircraft
• Funds the MH-60S and MH-60R helicopter programs
• Provides advance procurement funds for 20 F-22A aircraft
• Funds 14 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, deferring 2 aircraft, and funds advance procurement for 27 F-35 aircraft in FY 2010
• Fully funds 38 Predator Unmanned Air Vehicles for the Air Force
• Fully funds 5 Global Hawk Unmanned Air Vehicles
• Provides advance procurement funds for 6 VH-71 executive helicopters
• Eliminates 4 MC-130J aircraft which were funded in the FY 2008 Supplemental

Comments?

 

[Grand Danois]

The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee eliminates five JSFs up until 2010 thus threatening to disrupt the start of the ramp-up in production(?) and keeping the F-22 line warm for the next administration(?).

Comments?

Yes, Bill Sweetman is from the right side of the certainty through.

 

[swerve]

Just as a reference: According to the USAF 2009 Budget Estimates a F-35 will cost 83 mn USD (then-year, future-year, 2036 USD) on average.

Not 2036 dollars. The unit price in "then year" dollars is the total amount spent in the period in question (in this case 2014 to 2036), in dollars at the time payment is made, divided by the total number bought.

E.g. if you buy 900 in 2014 at $40 mn, & 100 in 2036 at $400mn, you pay ((900 * 40) + (100 * 400))/1000 = $76 mn each.

But if you buy the same overall number, at the same prices, but distributed differently, the average price changes. e.g. 500 in 2014 & 500 in 2036 gives a price of $220 mn each.

the calculation is therefore sensitive both to predicted inflation, & to the pattern of purchases.

 

[Grand Danois]

Not 2036 dollars. The unit price in "then year" dollars is the total amount spent in the period in question (in this case 2014 to 2036), in dollars at the time payment is made, divided by the total number bought.

E.g. if you buy 900 in 2014 at $40 mn, & 100 in 2036 at $400mn, you pay ((900 * 40) + (100 * 400))/1000 = $76 mn each.

But if you buy the same overall number, at the same prices, but distributed differently, the average price changes. e.g. 500 in 2014 & 500 in 2036 gives a price of $220 mn each.

the calculation is therefore sensitive both to predicted inflation, & to the pattern of purchases.

Wholly agree. I pointed out that the LockMart dollar reference is the same as the USAF dollar reference - the 2036 then/future year dollar.

The difference in cost (77/83) is because USAF include some extra equipment, whereas LM is barebone recurring fly-away.

It was the consistency between what the USAF says in their budget and what LM says I highlighted.

(I know they're not exactly the same due to the effects you describe, but it is so mimimal !! )

 

[swerve]

LMs rebuttal to the sept. 9th Sprey and Wheeler JDW article:

Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Note that
1) the rebuttal was published by JDW in the same issue as the Sprey & Wheeler article, following straight on from it - on the facing page.
2) the Sprey & Wheeler article was presented by JDW as a reader-submitted article.
3) JDW solicited more such reader articles at the end of the Sprey & Wheeler article.

Just so everyone knows what the context was.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee eliminates five JSFs up until 2010 thus threatening to disrupt the start of the ramp-up in production(?) and keeping the F-22 line warm for the next administration(?).



Comments?

Yes they will keep the F-22 line going for the next president. I am very confident no matter who wins the air force will get a total of around 250 F-22s up from only 183. Though 381 is unlikely. They fund 14 F-35s plus the advanced procurement of 27 more and they only eliminate 2 F-35s not 5.

 

[Waterfestival93]

Grand Danois:
You keep repeating your believe in JSF. If it were your own money and that early in a project, with a number of upcoming obstacles(as in all new high technology projects), uncertanities and R&D extras, would you invest your own money? Comparing the earlier "sister" project's(F-22) cost development and actual price, would that make you so shure of a "affordable" price when all the ducks are counted? For me, if LM would give a fixed price including maintenance, spares, planned R&D etc that compares to the Gripen NG offer, well then it might be interesting? But today, you are buying the pig in the sack, as we say in Sweden.
Statements by Mr. Tom Burbage (LM)last week focus on... "In addition to its strategic military importance, the F-35’s integrated global production structure will promote worldwide allied collaboration"... Hey it's an industrial project, don't focus on the specifications. Your either with us or against us someone stated earlier. I think that puts DK and NO in an uneasy position.

Someone re earlier on my comment "cutting through thin air". That was just a graphic frase, sorry. The physics is related to the lift forces of the wings (the fuselage's lift force is negligable) making it possible to turn, and the opposing centrifugal forces that tryes to make the jet to fly straight ahead. The centrifugal force that have to be overcome to turn is comprised of speed and mass(weight of the jet). A heavy jet have to overcome higher centrifugal forces to turn, and there is a restriction on the lift force the wings can create. When that is passed the jet will not turn in. The wing loading is thus relevant in this. I still maintain that the Gripen NG will outperform the JSF in dogfight. And it will be cheaper, a lot cheaper. It's just not logic to assume that the total package for JSF will be as cheap as Gripen NG. We can grab a beer in 30 years time, and if the Gripen NG have been more expensive than JSF, then i will cash your mortgage, if the other way round, you cach my mortgage? No pun intended, cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Waterfestival93,

There is not much that suggests that the F-35 will significantly go over budget. As LM rebutted, only a small fraction of the current programme cost overruns stem from programmetic problems. I did a costing on the back on an envelope back in 2006 when 500 jets was cut from the programme to get an idea on what influence it would have on programme unit cost. I found at that that time that two-thirds of the increase in unit cost was due to cut in numbers and most of the rest was externally forced. Since then programme costs have been reduced by 1 bn USD and numbers of airframes have been cut by 6.

This is exactly what LM says in their rebuttal. (Which is one of the reasons I was pleased: LM has found the same.) Trying to stick the "cost overrun" label to the JSF is not correct.

Conclusion: there is not much to suggest that cost projections will derail unless external forces have a significant impact. The programme itself is tightly managed.

Further, the USAF costings, the cost given by LM in interviews and the quotations for Norway and Denmark do not conflict in their prices. They are what should be expected.

Conclusion: LM/F-35 quotations for Denmark and Norway are consistent with what USAF is going to pay for their jets.

* * *​

If you read this thread it is a 95% defensive thread on the account of the F-35. The F-35 is being scrutinized and critizised from every corner; on cost, on capability. There is a rare critique of the Gripen. But how about applying the same metrics to the gripen?

The reason why it is possible to discuss the F-35 at all, is because the US Government is so open as it is - you can get your hands on most of the information you need. You cannot do this on the Gripen - yes there are some numbers out, but not enough to do a fairly reliable estimate. And you will not know what a Gripen NG will cost the Swedish taxpayer. SAAB has guaranteed prices for Denmark and Norway; who will pick up the tab if this does not stick? The Swedish government has promised Norway that it will introduce a significant number of NGs into the Swedish Air Force if Norway picks the Gripen NG. The cash-starved Swedish defence will have to pick up that tab.

Further on cost: If you don't understand how the F-35 can be so cheap, here's the story: Subcontractors and assembly lines operate at the lower limit of viable efficiencies at 20-22 jets a year. The Gripen are built at a rate of 15! The Gripen is helped out here by using much COTS/MOTS reducing the effect on the subcontractors. E.g. the Rafale is currently suffering from a sticker chock from the fact that only 12 leaves the line a year. Skills and infrastructure has to be retained no matter what quantity a product is being built in. And additional economies of scale are hard to achieve at low rates. A stark contrast is that next year the number of F-35 built will be 14 - and that's in LRIP production!!!

In contrast the F-35 is going to be built at rates of 200++ a year. And not only that, but the total quantity is so large, that there is a significant payoff in spending RD&T dollars in optimizing the design and production infrastructure for further production efficiencies.

Perhaps it is time to leave illusion behind that because a product uses cheaper, derisked, available technology it has to be significantly cheaper than a product that has sheer mass of numbers behind it, and multiple levels of efficiencies.

Add to that, what is available as MOTS to SAAB is different from what is availbale as MOTS to the JSF programme - think of the leveraged technology of the F-22A flowing into the JSF and vice versa.

Risk. The F-35 test flight programme is advancing slowly, but as LM said, there will be 19 + 1 prototypes around in 18 months. As I understand it, SAAB is relying on a single testbed for their entire programme. Different kind of risk management. But who manages it better? If nothing happens to the testbed or no major technical obstacle occur on the Gripen Demo - then SAAB will have taken a clever approach. But it tells nothing on the progress of the F-35. The only remaining risk I see in the JSF programme is really if the economies of scale are realised to its full extent at the production line.

With regard to wing loading - see attachment.

And that beer sounds nice - and it would be fun to look back at these fighter acquisition discussions in retrospect.

Cheers

 

[Dalregementet]

Political factors

We can discuss technical features, unit price and so on but at the end there is a balanced conclusion where also politics is involved. With the present red/green norwegian government, LM will find it difficult to persuade Norway to buy the F35. The Swedish offset deal is superior to LM as it also involves small to medium size companies from all parts of Norway. The present norwegian government is also keen to cooperate with Sweden in defence matters as well as in industry matters, concrete projects will materialise during the next 9 months. If Gripen meets the norwegian requirements, then I think it´s game over for F35. Stealth is a good feature, but countries like France, Germany and the UK will opt for non stealth as the bulk of their air forces. Now, should Norway opt for stealth anyway?

The grand old man in norwegian politics, Hakon Lie, just stated that "choosing F35 over Gripen would be political suicide for the present government"... Cheers!!!

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=526113

 

[Grand Danois]

He never explains why it would be political suicide at a domestic political level - it just is, in his opinion.

He also reiterate the fallacies that the F-35 is a dumb mud mover (effective campaign there by the detractors). However, if you study the Norwegian press and the commentary, the rebuttals have been so vocal and effective, that even Aftenposten is hesistant to print material from the likes of Berg anymore. Now they know it for what it is. Much more knowledge and quality has gone into the debate; in Denmark we're have not even reached this point of debate yet! (Berlingske brought an article today that said that the SH is twice as expensive as the much cheaper Gripen and F-35 in LCC ).

Btw, heard an interview with Tomas Ries, direktör för Utrikespolitiska institutet. He had some comments on how the Nordic countries are going to orient themselves in the future. With the ESDP dead with the fall of the Lisbon Treaty and prompted by the situation in Georgia, it seems that the political circles in both Sweden and Finland are reorienting themselves away from a security policy based on an European pillar as it will take decades to materialise. Further, the lack of trust and the implosion of the Swedish military, together with a Swedish defence industry under severe strain and pushing out, the idea of security based on the Nordic countries alone is also dead.

Which leaves US backed NATO.

But I seriously don't think this has any influence on what jet will be bought.

For those who feel like torturing themselves with an audioclip in Danish and Swedish, here it is: Finland i NATO.

 

[Vivendi]

Btw, heard an interview with Tomas Ries, direktör för Utrikespolitiska institutet. He had some comments on how the Nordic countries are going to orient themselves in the future. With the ESDP dead with the fall of the Lisbon Treaty and prompted by the situation in Georgia, it seems that the political circles in both Sweden and Finland are reorienting themselves away from a security policy based on an European pillar as it will take decades to materialise. Further, the lack of trust and the implosion of the Swedish military, together with a Swedish defence industry under severe strain and pushing out, the idea of security based on the Nordic countries alone is also dead.

Which leaves US backed NATO.

http://www.barentsobserver.com/barents-founding-father-takes-on-nordic-cooperation.4493046-16283.html

http://www.barentsobserver.com/a-step-closer-nordic-defence-cooperation.4492925-16283.html

http://www.barentsobserver.com/joint-air-bases-for-sweden-and-norway.4492336-16283.html

http://www.barentsobserver.com/sweden-finland-debate-nato-as-russia-relations-worsen.4504795-16283.html

Russia will not however welcome new NATO members along its borders, be it in the Caucasus or in the European North. Several prominent Russian politicians have been outspoken about negative consequences of Finnish and Swedish membership in the alliance.

A Nordic alliance may seem less "threatening" to Russia than Sweden and Finland joining. Another probably more important factor is that many swedes and finns do not want to join NATO; some of these NATO sceptics may be more willing to consider a nordic alliance instead. If Denmark should also join (perhaps not very likely?) you would be looking at an area with a population of 24 million people, GDP of 1400 billion USD (roughly like Canada) but an area of roughly 10% of Canada.

The threshold for attacking such an alliance would be very high, in particular considering that two of the members would also be in NATO.

But I seriously don't think this has any influence on what jet will be bought.

http://www.marshallcenter.org/site-graphic/lang-en/page-pubs-index-1/static/xdocs/research/static/occpapers/occ-paper_11-en.pdf

Politics played the predominant role in the Polish government’s decision to buy the F-16. Szmajdzinski attempted to counter this conclusion by stating the decision was based “on merit, not politics.”136 The facts support otherwise.

It is well known that politics often play an important role in deciding where to buy military equipment. Why would this arms sale be any different?

To me this seems very open-ended at the moment. I am not convinced a Nordic alliance will materalize although it is definitely being considered in some countries.

I hesitate to guess whether the Norwegian center-left government will go for Gripen NG or F-35; to me the outcome of all this seems quite open-ended.

V

 

[gf0012-aust]

Wednesday September 17 2008​

First published: 16 Sep 2008, 11:05
Can we rely on the Swedes

The long-running debate about which new fighter plane to buy, has taken yet another turn. Sweden is a neutral country. Will it supply Norway with parts for its plane if there’s a war?

Swedish neutrality creates uncertainty about access to spare parts in the event of war.

PHOTO: FRANS DELY / GRIPEN INTERNATIONAL

Labour Party veteran Haakon Lie said that the Government should buy the Swedish fighter or risk losing next year's general election. Several other senior former politicians are now entering the debate.

"Will Sweden’s neutrality mean that the Swedes won't be able to service and deliver parts to their JAS Gripen fighters?" asks Labour Party veteran Ronald Bye.

Former Labour Party chairman, Reiulf Steen, wants Norway to buy the Swedish plane. He has been a strong NATO supporter since the beginning, but doesn’t like the way it has changed in recent years. "It's become like a 21st century foreign legion, where the USA, through NATO, attacks whatever it doesn't like," says Steen. He thinks that, with the right guarantees, Norway should buy the Swedish plane.

Former Conservative Prime Minister, Kåre Willoch, thinks that the debate is becoming too emotionally charged. "It would be irresponsible if the choice was made on the basis of public opinion at election time, rather than after careful study of each planes technical abilities," says Willoch.

He is concerned that the Swedish company may not be financially strong enough to honour its commitment to supply parts and updates over decades.

He adds that the American plane is not necessarily to be preferred from a foreign policy point of view.

Oddmund Hammerstad, Willoch’s former State Secretary for Defense, has changed his mind and now wants the Swedish plane, "because it’s the most suitable for Norwegian conditions." He is satisfied with Swedish government guarantees.

Will all future Swedish governments be willing to supply fighter parts? Will the producers of the Gripen be able to give guarantees? "No, we can't," says spokesman for the JAS 39 Gripen, Hans Rosén. "Norway doesn't buy the Gripen from SAAB, but from the Swedish government. Norway will get the guarantees it requires," he asserts.

Aftenposten English Web Desk
Sven Goll
Geir Salvesen
__________________

 

[Vivendi]

Waterfestival93,

There is not much that suggests that the F-35 will significantly go over budget. As LM rebutted, only a small fraction of the current programme cost overruns stem from programmetic problems. I did a costing on the back on an envelope back in 2006 when 500 jets was cut from the programme to get an idea on what influence it would have on programme unit cost. I found at that that time that two-thirds of the increase in unit cost was due to cut in numbers and most of the rest was externally forced. Since then programme costs have been reduced by 1 bn USD and numbers of airframes have been cut by 6.

GD, one important assumption in the analysis that leads to a low unit cost estimate is that a large number of F-35 will be sold. I agree that this is still the most likely scenario however considering today's financial turmoil I would not bee too confident about it.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/militarywatch/2008/09/fiscal_woes_at_the_pentagon_to.html

Ever-optimistic, Pentagon budgeteers are hurtling down the tracks with a planned massive burst of spending over the next decade -- $900 billion in the next five years alone, according to the GAO -- to buy shiny new generations of weapons systems. They plan to buy a dramatically expanded Army and Marine Corps, continue to finance two wars, and float a growing health care system for troops and families, among many other initiatives.

The numbers are staggering. War in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost $859 billion so far and are projected by the Congressional Research Service to cost as much as $1.055 trillion more over the next decade.

The annual cost of military health care will double in the next 10 years, from $39 billion this year to $80 billion by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Pentagon also has signed up for Lockheed-Martin's F-35 fighter, at an estimated long-term cost of $300 billion, the Army's future combat systems, for a projected $161 billion, and an estimated $100 billion for adding 92,000 soldiers and Marines.

Some of these numbers are what a White House budget officer once described to me as "fairy dust." He meant the cost estimates are built in part on unsupported guesses and hope. Indeed, the Goverment Accountability Office found in an investigation this spring that the Pentagon routinely pays about 25 percent more for its big weapons systems than it originally budgeted.

So far, the United States has been able to to borrow enough ($407 billion this year) to finance defense and other federal spending. But with costs for social security, Medicare and Medicaid and other mandated programs rising, the CBO said last week that "the nation is on an unsustainable long-term fiscal course ..."

And that was LAST week.

The US has already reduced costs on health care considerably the last few years; for sure more cuts are to come. However there are limits to how much you can cut on health care in a democratic country. Therefore US defence will face some massive cuts in the very near future. It's anybodys guess which programs will go and which will be scaled back. I agree that the F-35 program is too important to be eliminated; however if I am right then we will see an overall smaller US military machine in the future; this implies also fewer F-35s than what LM and USAF currently got in their plans.

How many F-35 will be cut? Nobody can tell today, in particular since we do not know if the US economy has reached the bottom or is still going down-hill.


V

 

[Grand Danois]

GD, one important assumption in the analysis that leads to a low unit cost estimate is that a large number of F-35 will be sold. I agree that this is still the most likely scenario however considering today's financial turmoil I would not bee too confident about it.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/militarywatch/2008/09/fiscal_woes_at_the_pentagon_to.html



The US has already reduced costs on health care considerably the last few years; for sure more cuts are to come. However there are limits to how much you can cut on health care in a democratic country. Therefore US defence will face some massive cuts in the very near future. It's anybodys guess which programs will go and which will be scaled back. I agree that the F-35 program is too important to be eliminated; however if I am right then we will see an overall smaller US military machine in the future; this implies also fewer F-35s than what LM and USAF currently got in their plans.

How many F-35 will be cut? Nobody can tell today, in particular since we do not know if the US economy has reached the bottom or is still going down-hill.


V

Vivendi,

• The overall JSF budget out to 2036 is 299 bn USD - and that's TY 2036 dollars. And some of that money is already sunk.
  
• We know that efficiencies of scale is reached well with a production run of 2400 - and the planned production run is actually planned to be 3100++ and probably more as export customers chime in. We also know that a hypothetical cut of 500 jets means a 3% increase in unit cost. In other words: The JSF programme can absorb a serious amount of cuts without significant increase in unit cost.
  
• We know that the USAF will need to recapitalize its fleet on a massive scale - it has no choice.
  
• We know that the only real option for the RN and US Marines is the F-35.
  
• We know that the best (and only) choice for the USN CVW are the F-35.
  
• The US will be largely out of Iraq by 2011 saving close to a 100 bn USD a year. That's your savings - and a US military with a reduced activity level.
  
• Money are about to be freed up in USAF budgets as other projects are winding down as planned - in order to use the money for F-35s. E.g. The F-22A and the C-17. Oddly enough, the F-35 purchase has actually been expected.

These are FACT - as opposed to speculation. The speculation that unit cost will go out of hand has close to no substance backing it. The strength of what we actually know is overwhelming that speculation.

And now for the new theme; applying the same metric to the Gripen NG.

The Gripen production ends in, what, 2010-2011? Unless SAAB can actually pick up some orders. This means that there is the possibility of a hiatus of 3-4 years until production resume again. And what if Norway is the only one to chose the Gripen NG? This would mean a run of 48 jets stretched over 4-5 years at 10-12 jets a year. Luckily the Wallenbergs (SAAB) have the Swedish taxpayer picking up the tab if its guarentee does not stick. You know, the Swedish Govt is behind it to the end:

Will all future Swedish governments be willing to supply fighter parts? Will the producers of the Gripen be able to give guarantees? "No, we can't," says spokesman for the JAS 39 Gripen, Hans Rosén. "Norway doesn't buy the Gripen from SAAB, but from the Swedish government. Norway will get the guarantees it requires," he asserts.


That's LRIP production from a cold production line. Remember that the cost of reactivating a closed production line is what keeps the F-22A in slow, expensive production. And that the US Govt has just allocated money just to keep it alive, with no production, because it is cheaper than shutting it down ever so briefly.

I'll get back to your other post later.

 

[Vivendi]

Vivendi,
...

These are FACT - as opposed to speculation. The speculation that unit cost will go out of hand has close to no substance backing it. The strength of what we actually know is overwhelming that speculation.

And now for the new theme; applying the same metric to the Gripen NG.
...

I'll get back to your other post later.

GD,

Thanks for another great post. You have some very good points. I was not aware that the numbers were so robust. Given the arguments you present I agree, the probability that F-35 will become very expensive seems rather low.

Your Gripen comments are also very interesting and refreshing. I am looking forward to your reply to my other post


V

 

[Dalregementet]

He never explains why it would be political suicide at a domestic political level - it just is, in his opinion.

He also reiterate the fallacies that the F-35 is a dumb mud mover (effective campaign there by the detractors). However, if you study the Norwegian press and the commentary, the rebuttals have been so vocal and effective, that even Aftenposten is hesistant to print material from the likes of Berg anymore. Now they know it for what it is. Much more knowledge and quality has gone into the debate; in Denmark we're have not even reached this point of debate yet! (Berlingske brought an article today that said that the SH is twice as expensive as the much cheaper Gripen and F-35 in LCC ).

Btw, heard an interview with Tomas Ries, direktör för Utrikespolitiska institutet. He had some comments on how the Nordic countries are going to orient themselves in the future. With the ESDP dead with the fall of the Lisbon Treaty and prompted by the situation in Georgia, it seems that the political circles in both Sweden and Finland are reorienting themselves away from a security policy based on an European pillar as it will take decades to materialise. Further, the lack of trust and the implosion of the Swedish military, together with a Swedish defence industry under severe strain and pushing out, the idea of security based on the Nordic countries alone is also dead.

Which leaves US backed NATO.

But I seriously don't think this has any influence on what jet will be bought.

For those who feel like torturing themselves with an audioclip in Danish and Swedish, here it is: Finland i NATO.

Sweden and Finland has no intention whatsoever to replace Nato with an EU or regional based security framework. The intention from Sweden and Finland is to strengthen cooperation irrespectively of of current security frameworks. This also goes in line with Swedens and Finlands, very slow, move in joining Nato. So yes, politics and industrial cooperation will play a significant role in Norways choice of a new fighter aircraft but only if the contenders meet Norways technical requirements.

 

[Dalregementet]

Vivendi,

• The overall JSF budget out to 2036 is 299 bn USD - and that's TY 2036 dollars. And some of that money is already sunk.
  
• We know that efficiencies of scale is reached well with a production run of 2400 - and the planned production run is actually planned to be 3100++ and probably more as export customers chime in. We also know that a hypothetical cut of 500 jets means a 3% increase in unit cost. In other words: The JSF programme can absorb a serious amount of cuts without significant increase in unit cost.
  
• We know that the USAF will need to recapitalize its fleet on a massive scale - it has no choice.
  
• We know that the only real option for the RN and US Marines is the F-35.
  
• We know that the best (and only) choice for the USN CVW are the F-35.
  
• The US will be largely out of Iraq by 2011 saving close to a 100 bn USD a year. That's your savings - and a US military with a reduced activity level.
  
• Money are about to be freed up in USAF budgets as other projects are winding down as planned - in order to use the money for F-35s. E.g. The F-22A and the C-17. Oddly enough, the F-35 purchase has actually been expected.

These are FACT - as opposed to speculation. The speculation that unit cost will go out of hand has close to no substance backing it. The strength of what we actually know is overwhelming that speculation.

And now for the new theme; applying the same metric to the Gripen NG.

The Gripen production ends in, what, 2010-2011? Unless SAAB can actually pick up some orders. This means that there is the possibility of a hiatus of 3-4 years until production resume again. And what if Norway is the only one to chose the Gripen NG? This would mean a run of 48 jets stretched over 4-5 years at 10-12 jets a year. Luckily the Wallenbergs (SAAB) have the Swedish taxpayer picking up the tab if its guarentee does not stick. You know, the Swedish Govt is behind it to the end:

Will all future Swedish governments be willing to supply fighter parts? Will the producers of the Gripen be able to give guarantees? "No, we can't," says spokesman for the JAS 39 Gripen, Hans Rosén. "Norway doesn't buy the Gripen from SAAB, but from the Swedish government. Norway will get the guarantees it requires," he asserts.


That's LRIP production from a cold production line. Remember that the cost of reactivating a closed production line is what keeps the F-22A in slow, expensive production. And that the US Govt has just allocated money just to keep it alive, with no production, because it is cheaper than shutting it down ever so briefly.

I'll get back to your other post later.

You could use the same arguments when trying to sell F16 to Hungary, Czechia and Thailand - they didn´t choose a US fighter aircraft nor did Saudi Arabia... The JSF sales team should enrole you, your argumentation is convincing! However thera are more factors than the ones you listed and I don´t think that Norway has any doubts that Saab/Sweden will deliver the promise . Also, LM reputation when it comes to offset business is not the best .

 

[gf0012-aust]

You could use the same arguments when trying to sell F16 to Hungary, Czechia and Thailand - they didn´t choose a US fighter aircraft nor did Saudi Arabia...

so what? attend to the debate at hand.

The JSF sales team should enrole you, your argumentation is convincing!

Learn some manners or you'll be put on a short leash

However thera are more factors than the ones you listed

Your job if you disagree is to provide a coherent response - not to make a convenient throw away statement and then walk away from detailed debate.

I don´t think that Norway has any doubts that Saab/Sweden will deliver the promise .

and yet the Norwegian Labor politician Ronald Bye and Former Conservative Prime Minister, Kåre Willoch express doubts over a number of issues....

Also, LM reputation when it comes to offset business is not the best .

Sweden did n't get a good reputation in Australia either over issues of spare parts and support during the Vietnam War - so is that irrelevant for other countries to factor in? eg LM has had offset business problems with what percentage of its customers? (real numbers, not "pretend" emotional pro-nationalistic generated numbers)

 

[Grand Danois]

You could use the same arguments when trying to sell F16 to Hungary, Czechia and Thailand - they didn´t choose a US fighter aircraft...

To these countries the type of offset package SAAB offers is very lucrative. More so than in the case of more highly developed nations like DK, N and Holland.

...nor did Saudi Arabia...

They diversify their sources of defence equipment. And they can afford to.

The JSF sales team should enrole you, your argumentation is convincing!

I don't think I'd make a good LM employee - not that fond of Powerpoints.

However thera are more factors than the ones you listed and I don´t think that Norway has any doubts that Saab/Sweden will deliver the promise . Also, LM reputation when it comes to offset business is not the best .

The JSF programme doesn't use offsets - it uses possibilty to bid on contracts based on best value - though there is an undercurrent of offsets in it.

Note to all: I think both LM and SAAB will deliver product as promised, and I also believe Gripen NG will snatch at least the Swiss contract. Coupled with a small production run for the Swedish Air Force it should be a fairly efficient run, a good basis for the other bids. If the same "Doom & Gloom" metric which is applied to the JSF is applied to the Gripen, it seems that the programmatic risk and uncertainty on cost is greater for the Gripen programme - which is why the Swedish Government has stepped in to mitigate that risk and uncertainty as seen from a customer perspective.

I'm the bad cop.

 

[Dalregementet]

To these countries the type of offset package SAAB offers is very lucrative. More so than in the case of more highly developed nations like DK, N and Holland.

I agree in all cases except Norway. Norway is very much oil & gas but not for very long - they need to switch to other industries when the oil & gas production declines - it has already started to do just that. So, an industrial cooperation with Sweden (the Wallenberg family) is important for Norway and the fighter deal could be a vehicle just for that IF the Gripen fighter is in line with the Norwegian requirements?

Bad cop, good cop... doesn´t matter, they´re all dead