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

[swerve]

If it was a requirement to be able to form a joint expeditionary force with Danish, Dutch & Belgian fighters easily, after Portugal & the original four NATO F-16 consortium members replace their F-16s with a new type, then surely there would be some equivalent of the joint F-16 purchase? As it is, Portugal & Belgium don't even appear to be looking for an F-16 replacement yet, & the Dutch, Danes & Norwegians are evaluating aircraft separately, not jointly as in 1976.

The EEAW argument is more an argument for another joint selection than an argument for one type rather than another.

 

[Grand Danois]

If it was a requirement to be able to form a joint expeditionary force with Danish, Dutch & Belgian fighters easily, after Portugal & the original four NATO F-16 consortium members replace their F-16s with a new type, then surely there would be some equivalent of the joint F-16 purchase?

Which may be why LockMart is talking about a 5-10% discount if a collective order is placed.

As it is, Portugal & Belgium don't even appear to be looking for an F-16 replacement yet, & the Dutch, Danes & Norwegians are evaluating aircraft separately, not jointly as in 1976.

The EEAWs "core" has traditionally been Danish-Dutch-Norwegian, however interesting times will be ahead of EEAW no matter what, as there will be a mix of jets at some point.

The EEAW argument is more an argument for another joint selection than an argument for one type rather than another.

Yes... and no.

Yes because LockMart argues the value of a global logistics chain.

No, because if the Gripen NG was expected to be in more widespread use they could work along a similar concept. It is the circumstances that make it seem so.

But it is a matter of priority. In Norway it is officially a low priority; in Denmark it is currently a part of the raison d'etre of the air force.

Though I have my views on what jet offers the best CONOPS and value, I don't care which jet individual nations choose. But I'd hate to see EEAW to go down the drain, as it is a truly working model for multinational defence integration.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Setting the reccord straight on the F-35.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/setting-record-straight-f-35/story.aspx?guid={9612939F-4BC3-4FEF-9EC5-EF92775DE3E8}&dist=hppr

Thats right the F-35 will be 400% more capable than any current fighter. This should put to rest all that bulls**t about the F-35 "getting clubbed like baby seals from the Russian's". The article has the details.

Edit, for some reason you going to have to copy and paste the link if you want to go to the article.

 

[kato]

On top of that, UK and Germany have their own expeditionary wings. They don't need to form up with others.

Wait - what, when, where?

Germany has roughly one squadron (of pilots) on readiness for QRA over Germany (two QRA ready teams 24/7 iirc), and activated a second for CAP over the Baltic Shield when it was Germany's turn for that.

Of course, in theory Germany has four deployment modules with total up to 72 EF (two wings) as part of the EK forces.

 

[Grand Danois]

Wait - what, when, where?

Germany has roughly one squadron (of pilots) on readiness for QRA over Germany (two QRA ready teams 24/7), and activated a second for CAP over the Baltic Shield when it was Germany's turn for that.

Of course, in theory Germany has one fighter and strike wing (36 aircraft ea) on readiness each, as 4 deployment modules as part of the EK forces.

OK ok... two wings formed up from theoretical deployment modules. I don't how the organisational layout is, but France and UK have at least 1 or 2 full wings each. Long time since I checked up; I believe the French to have 70-100 jets ready.

 

[gf0012-aust]

By the way - these warnings, do they have an expiriation date? In Sweden, traffic speeding is logged for 2 years

It's at the Mods discretion. Obviously back to back is an issue - over time there is obviously a goodwill consideration.

I'm hoping that it's been as a result of a loss in translation, and that your initial enthusiasm to take a "nationalistic" approach has been an aberration.

Any discussion about suspending and banning is a Mod Group discussion (unless it's a blatant breach and patterned behaviour means that there is no hope in negotiation)

In Oz traffic offences carry for 3 years - so the Swedes obviously have a more friendly and generous attitude re traffic violations.

 

[Grand Danois]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/setting-record-straight-f-35/story.aspx?guid={9612939F-4BC3-4FEF-9EC5-EF92775DE3E8}&dist=hppr

Thats right the F-35 will be 400% more capable than any current fighter. This should put to rest all that bulls**t about the F-35 "getting clubbed like baby seals from the Russian's". The article has the details.

Edit, for some reason you going to have to copy and paste the link if you want to go to the article.

It also contains the only public description of what the purpose of the "F-35 clubbed like baby seals" wargame was:

Recent claims that Russian fighters defeated F-35s in a Hawaii-based simulated combat exercise are untrue, according to Maj. Gen. Davis.

"The reports are completely false and misleading and have absolutely no basis in fact," Maj. Gen. Davis said. "The August 2008 Pacific Vision Wargame that has been referenced recently in the media did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness. The F-35 is required to be able to effectively defeat current and projected air-to-air threats. All available information, at the highest classification, indicates that F-35 is effectively meeting these aggressive operational challenges."

The Pacific Vision Wargame was a table-top exercise designed to assess basing and force-structure vulnerabilities, and did not include air-to-air combat exercises or any comparisons of different aircraft platforms.

Thank you Dr. Jensen for injecting your perspective into the discussion and remember to quote from the conclusions/findings instead of selecting a hearsay snippet that fits your purposes the next time.

Working link:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/0919ae_f-35settingrecordstraight.html

I feel like quoting this as well:

The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.

 

[moahunter]

Where there is smoke, there is often fire. But in saying that, you could probably design scenarios to give any aircraft and advantage or disadvantage. It seems to me that the F35 is not an air-superiority aircraft like the F22 - it is more of a compromised fighter/strike type aircraft, which in many respects is probably more useful in todays world. It is reasonable to assume that up against a pure air superiority aircraft (like the future PAK FA), it may in some circumstances run into problems. As to whether or not that is a practical concern, I think the answer is probably not, as if there ever is a situation that involves a PAK FA, there will probably be some F22's around as well.

This is just not comparing apples to apples, but rather apples to oranges. In saying that, I don't know what was or wasn't in those scenarios, and no-one else does either, outside of those involved. Seems an awfully "defensive" response though, which may raise more doubts than it should - was it really necessary to go public to give credence to the story?

 

[Vivendi]

The Pacific Vision story has now reached Holland:

http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article1069130.ece/2016_Russen_overweldigen_JSF

Google translated:

During the exercise Pacific Vision, the devices' neergeknuppeld as seals, "says an Australian newspaper that knew how to herd on the analysis of the simulation. This qualification is contradicted by manufacturer Lockheed Martin, who admits that the JSF with other devices was part of a "war game".

Certainly seventy senior officials from the U.S. and Australia attended the simulation at. They followed an attack imitated of China on Taiwan, which the Western Air Force and Navy had to reverse. The exercise went ahead to the year 2016. Then both the JSF as the new Russian Soechoi's in use, and the last to include Russia, China and Indonesia. The JSF, according to the analysis' overwhelmed 'by the much larger numbers, firepower and better radar systems of the opponent. Especially the Soechoi 35 makes short shrift to the alleged invisibility of the JSF - an important selling point for the device. The JSF is designed for rapid strikes outside the sight of enemy aircraft. According to the analysis, he will also direct fights to make. It is he 'double inferior' because he can not run, can not climb and can not run. "

Author of the analysis, Rand Corporation, is an influential American military think tank that is enabled by the Netherlands for a comparison of the JSF with other devices.

For the Netherlands says the exercise nothing, says Defense. "The simulation focused on the establishment of a future Air Force fleet which we do not belong. And it was a strategic analysis, the simulation of the capabilities of the F-35 in aerial combat. "

The mixed blessings of automatic translation


Perhaps one relevant question is: Are these Dutch media reports any more reliable than the Austrialian? Probably not?

I am also curious about the reference to Rand; from the translation I got the impression they were involved in the analysis? Probably a misunderstanding? Presumably Rand would not have the classified knowledge to make relevant simulations? OTOH that could also explain the "suprising" results that were produced?

In any case, if any of the above is even remotely correct then perhaps this is another USAF "Cope India" trick to get more F-22? Or could the SU-35 with their powerful radars really become a threat to the F-35 if they presented in much larger numbers?


V

 

[Grand Danois]

Rand was the sponsor of said exercise. However it was table top focusing on basing and PRC access denial, as per rumour and LockMart press release.

Another rumor is that the ROE supposedly also required visual ID before commencing in air-air combat.

So far LockMart's press release is the most authoritative on the subject of Pacific Vision, so this lends support to that no evaluation of air-air capabilities took place.

‘neergeknuppeld als zeehondjes’ - you gotta love Hollandse.

 

[Grand Danois]

Hahaha! It made it to Denmark to! The Communist paper "Arbejderen" ("The Worker" - complete with an inverted Red Star logo has picked it up.

http://arbejderen.dk/index.aspx?F_ID=51314&TS_ID=1&S_ID=3&C_ID=119

Basic errors include:

1) They attribute the Sprey & Wheeler article to Jane's.

2) They ate the story about Pacific Vision.

3) They believe Dr. Jensen is a member of the US senate!

They got it form the Norwegian Klassekampen (The Class Struggle).

No wonder why LockMart feels it has to put some intelligent input into the discussion.

Although the two papers mentioned are preaching to their own choir it creeps into the rest of the discussion!

 

[JohanGrön]

OT oneliner :s

The Pacific Vision story has now reached Holland:

http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article1069130.ece/2016_Russen_overweldigen_JSF

Google translated:
... neergeknuppeld ...

sounds a bit rude doesn't it

They are a merry lot the Dutch!

 

[Dalregementet]

Hahaha! It made it to Denmark to! The Communist paper "Arbejderen" ("The Worker" - complete with an inverted Red Star logo has picked it up.

http://arbejderen.dk/index.aspx?F_ID=51314&TS_ID=1&S_ID=3&C_ID=119

Basic errors include:

1) They attribute the Sprey & Wheeler article to Jane's.

2) They ate the story about Pacific Vision.

3) They believe Dr. Jensen is a member of the US senate!

They got it form the Norwegian Klassekampen (The Class Struggle).

No wonder why LockMart feels it has to put some intelligent input into the discussion.

Although the two papers mentioned are preaching to their own choir it creeps into the rest of the discussion!

In propaganda war, truth is not an issue I think this is a sign on that the fighter procurement, especially in Norway, more has turned into an political issue. Missinterpret me right now - I don't imply that technical features is unimportant but more that, if the contenders meet the technical requirements, which the Norvegian government has said both contenders do, then the political view will be what decides the outcome.

If stealth is a must for Norway and if choosing a non US fighter aircraft would severely affect US norwegian relations in a negative way long term, then I think Norway will choose F35. If not, then I think Norway will go for Gripen. A Norwegian/Swedish industry cooperation is very attractive for Norway and offset business is something that goes beyond "normal" business practices... I.e, otherwise not allowed. I think the Wallenberg group is very difficult to beat industry wise, even for the US government.

The latest Russian/Georgian war might also affect Norway's choice of fighter aircraft if Norway thinks that Russia, in general, will be more agressive - that definately strenghtens "the US card".

http://www.nordlys.no/debatt/leder/article3758126.ece

 

[Grand Danois]

In propaganda war, truth is not an issue I think this is a sign on that the fighter procurement, especially in Norway, more has turned into an political issue. Missinterpret me right now - I don't imply that technical features is unimportant but more that, if the contenders meet the technical requirements, which the Norvegian government has said both contenders do, then the political view will be what decides the outcome.

I've noted that you've hinted at it. I must say that the SAAB strategy of getting a great number of politicians and companies at "the grassroots level" involved in the Gripen seems quite effective in creating a "groundswell" of upward pressure into the decision making process. It's also known as pork barelling in the US. It doesn't seem that SAAB has gotten the same traction in Denmark.

If you compare this strategy with what has happened in Australia, where a small group that think they stand to benefit from an alternative choice - APA - they waged their war against the F-35 (and any other aircraft than the F-22A/F-111) by media sniping and suggestive but unsubstantiated injections into the media. They tried to create a pressure with the purpose of tying up Australian politicians (like the ever encumbent opposition, which will always like to have an alternative policy, heh! look what happened with approaching the yanks re the F-22A). That was a misfire.

If stealth is a must for Norway and if choosing a non US fighter aircraft would severely affect US norwegian relations in a negative way long term, then I think Norway will choose F35. If not, then I think Norway will go for Gripen. A Norwegian/Swedish industry cooperation is very attractive for Norway and offset business is something that goes beyond "normal" business practices... I.e, otherwise not allowed. I think the Wallenberg group is very difficult to beat industry wise, even for the US government.

I really don't think relations with the US is an issue. Norway and Denmark buy their equipment from very diverse suppliers. Tanks from Germany, IFVs from Sweden, radars from Holland, wheeled APCs from Switzerland... Denmark has even operated a Swedish jet, the JAS-35 (AKA the F35 in the RDAF), without any implications.

The "core goodwill" of the US is not at stake.

If the difference in capability between the two jets become a serious parameter, then it is because Norway thinks it is needed to better counter Russian ambitions.

Overmatch keeps a lid on things.

The latest Russian/Georgian war might also affect Norway's choice of fighter aircraft if Norway thinks that Russia, in general, will be more agressive - that definately strenghtens "the US card".

http://www.nordlys.no/debatt/leder/article3758126.ece

They say the same as Tomas Ries - Georgia had an impact on outlook.

NATO is the only entity with the strength to back up Norway. Yes, Nordic summed GDP, manpower, defence industry, geographical depth is impressive - but even combined it would still be a player like Canada...

And the Russian would love for a Nordic alliance to happen - they're quite uncomfortable with dealing with NATO/EU as a bloc; they try to deal with the West in as small entities as possible, strengthening their hand. Which is why the purpose of an Nordic Alliance seem dubious, because at the end of the day, we'd have to call on NATO anyway.

The reason why a Nordic Alliance is on the agenda is two-fold. The first reason is that Norway try to get as close to EU defence as possible, without being a member of the EU. Sweden is trying to get close to NATO as it can, without being a member. Now an effective ESDP looks to be a decade or more into the future...

The second reason is because Swedish defence industry are being cut in R&D and on acquisitions. They're looking to corner the market in Scandinavia as a new base, now that the Swedish doesn't have critical mass. That's my two bits.

That being said there is plenty of scope for increased cooperation. E.g. the NBG. The Norwegians are working on the NATO certification of Archer, Denmark looks set to move its mil ATC training to Sweden, etc...

Oh, yes. And if Denmark chose the F-35 we'll desperately need access the Vidsel range, as it's probably the only one large enough in Europe to accomodate the sensor footprint of the F-35.

 

[Dalregementet]

I've noted that you've hinted at it. I must say that the SAAB strategy of getting a great number of politicians and companies at "the grassroots level" seems quite effective in creating a "groundswell" of upward pressure into the decision making process. It's also known as pork barelling in the US. It doesn't seem that SAAB has gotten the same traction in Denmark.

If you compare this strategy with what has happened in Australia, where a small group that think they stand to benefit from an alternative choice - APA - they waged their war against the F-35 (and any other aircraft than the F-22A/F-111) by media sniping and suggestive but unsubstantiated injections into the media. They tried to create a pressure with the purpose of tying up Australian politicians (like the ever encumbent opposition, which will always like to have an alternative policy, heh! look what happened with approaching the yanks re the F-22A). That was a misfire.



I really don't think relations with the US is an issue. Norway and Denmark buy their equipment from very diverse suppliers. Tanks from Germany, IFVs from Sweden, radars from Holland, wheeled APCs from Switzerland... Denmark has even operated a Swedish jet, the JAS-35 (AKA the F35 in the RDAF), without any implications.

The "core goodwill" of the US is not at stake.

If the difference in capability between the two jets become a serious parameter, then it is because Norway thinks it is needed to better counter Russian ambitions.

Overmatch keeps a lid on things.



They say the same as Tomas Ries - Georgia had an impact on outlook.

NATO is the only entity with the strength to back up Norway. Yes, Nordic summed GDP, manpower, defence industry, geographical depth is impressive - but even combined it would still be a player like Canada...

And the Russian would love for a Nordic alliance to happen - they're quite uncomfortable with dealing with NATO/EU as a bloc; they try to deal with the West in as small entities as possible, strengthening their hand. Which is why the purpose of an Nordic Alliance seem dubious, because at the end of the day, we'd have to call on NATO anyway.

The reason why a Nordic Alliance is on the agenda is two-fold. The first reason is that Norway try to get as close to EU defence as possible, without being a member of the EU. Sweden is trying to get close to NATO as it can, without being a member. Now an effective ESDP looks to be a decade or more into the future...

The second reason is because Swedish defence industry are being cut in R&D and on acquisitions. They're looking to corner the market in Scandinavia as a new base, now that the Swedish doesn't have critical mass. That's my two bits.

That being said there is plenty of scope for increased cooperation. E.g. the NBG. The Norwegians are working on the NATO certification of Archer, Denmark looks set to move its mil ATC training to Sweden, etc...

Oh, yes. And if Denmark chose the F-35 we'll desperately need access the Vidsel range, as it's probably the only one large enough in Europe to accomodate the sensor footprint of the F-35.

I can cut you a good deal regarding the Vidsel range I have noted that the discussion about the new figher aircraft question is not as intense in Denmark as in Norway. In the Netherlands, I don´t have a clue?

However, I do think that Norway is more "red" than Denmark in general or, to more accurate, more "communitive" orientated.

I also think the of all Nordic countries, the present Norwegian government is the one that has most issues with the current US foreign policy.All nordic (Iceland?) countries have right wing governments except Norway. Norways government is not only Social democratic but also includes the green party (pacifists) and a party that before was labeled communistic. However, this will not in any way move Norway away from Nato or the US, I only indicate the the present Norwegian goverment is less pro US than it´s predecessor. Also, Sweden is not trying to weaken a Norwegian US/Nato link, on the contrary. The present Swedish government is pro US and pro NATO. One party in the Swedish coalition government has, for a number of years, openly advocated for a Swedish Nato membership.

Regarding the current Norwegian government, as I described the composition, the nature of the government makes it very focused on creating new jobs, especially in small and medium sized companies, all over Norway and in environment friendly business areas. Guess what Saab has gone for in complement to the defence oriented offset that attracts a few, somewhat larger companies?

 

[JohanGrön]

The second reason is because Swedish defence industry are being cut in R&D and on acquisitions. They're looking to corner the market in Scandinavia as a new base, now that the Swedish doesn't have critical mass. That's my two bits.

Just to clarify, the Swedish defence industry is already poised on the international market as the domestic market is to small. This started already when the walls came tumbeling down in Berlin and CCCP decided to implode shortly thereafter.

Sure they are seeking more international aliances but that's just sound economics and a process that started way back. The base is already international.

 

[Grand Danois]

Just to clarify, the Swedish defence industry is already poised on the international market as the domestic market is to small. This started already when the walls came tumbeling down in Berlin and CCCP decided to implode shortly thereafter.

Sure they are seeking more international aliances but that's just sound economics and a process that started way back. The base is already international.

True, but with a distinction. The Swedish Govt has previously been the lead customer, being able to finance development and acqusition of basic numbers of equipment. From this basis it has been possible to export or license production from a already finished product. This is less the case now, and as such, companies like SAAB need to tie markets and foreign development and acquisition money to its business through acqusitions (like Maersk Data Defense in Denmark) and by subcontracting. Because the basis for refining new product to the market cannot be sustained with Sweden plus exports.

 

[Dalregementet]

True, but with a distinction. The Swedish Govt has previously been the lead customer, being able to finance development and acqusition of basic numbers of equipment. From this basis it has been possible to export or license production from a already finished product. This is less the case now, and as such, companies like SAAB need to tie markets and foreign development and acquisition money to its business through acqusitions (like Maersk Data Defense in Denmark) and by subcontracting. Because the basis for refining new product to the market cannot be sustained with Sweden plus exports.

Correct - but today, besides Saab, also BAe and HDW are a part of the "Swedish" defence industry and the trend is to distribute development costs on several customers. Projects like Meteor, Iris T etc will have several countries as joint financiers. The new swedish made anti tank weapon NLAW have UK as first customer and so on. What has and is happening is a consolidation of the European defence industry. BAe for example own 20% in Saab, so I guess, Sweden is BAe country .

PS, Maersk was a miserable acquisition by Saab...

 

[Grand Danois]

Correct - but today, besides Saab, also BAe and HDW are a part of the "Swedish" defence industry and the trend is to distribute development costs on several customers. Projects like Meteor, Iris T etc will have several countries as joint financiers. The new swedish made anti tank weapon NLAW have UK as first customer and so on. What has and is happening is a consolidation of the European defence industry. BAe for example own 20% in Saab, so I guess, Sweden is BAe country .

I absolutely agree.

PS, Maersk was a miserable acquisition by Saab...

I know. :

 

[stigmata]

Huh? So what is the U.S. going to go from a superpower to a smaller military power. Are they going to cut 1 million personal from the armed forces? Maybe they will reduce the defense budget from $500 billion to just $20 billion....

There is a lack of insight in the US economy here.
Currently US tax revenue is 2.4 trillion dollar,
while US spending is 2.8 trillion dollar.
Thats a 400 billion dollar deficit, and escalating...

USA currently has 10 trillion dollar national debt, and a 13 trillion dollar GDP. A nation is generally concidered bankrupt when national debt equals GDP.

There are a few fixes to this.

1. increase tax revenues with 17% would stabalize the situation, - for the time being, until ever increasing masses of the babyboom retire.

2. Disbandon all military expenses would also stabalize the US economy for a while.

What route they will go down to is anyones guess...

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/benson/2008/0730.html
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#USMilitarySpending
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs"]YouTube - US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy[/ame]