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

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
ROFL! Saving 7.7 bn USD a year on the F-35 is gonna save the US economy!!!

That's about 6% of current DoD procurement. Fighter recap has historically been 10% of DoD procurement.

But I guess those 11 carriers will sail with no fighter jets and so will the amphibs. And the USAF will have a fighter fleet consisting of 183 F-22A; the average age of the fleet is currently 26 years.

Man, this could be a great pretext for discussing the current outlook of the US economy, tough I barely have the time this week. I guess others will have to dig up the data.

Here's a good start.

http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0,3343,en_2649_34573_2483901_1_1_1_1,00.html

Btw, Stigmata - national economics doesn't work like household economics. First you need to find out net debt, not gross. You'll have to find out public fiscal deficit as % of GDP, you need to look at growth and potential growth and relate it to growth in debt. You have to take into account at what point in the cycle the US econ is to get an idea of imbalances. There are so many other things that can be tweaked, like increasing retirement age.

You could then compare this to Europe and you will find absolute horror on all counts!

Except in Denmark, of course ;), which went 0.0% in public debt as percentage of GDP this spring and talk is of using the fiscal surpluses for setting up a SWF - like Norway. We also had a law passed last year which regulate retirement age as % of workforce and have a massive private and public savings for retirement.

And that's in a goldplated welfare state. :D
 
S

stigmata

New Member
Grand Danois said:
ROFL! Saving 7.7 bn USD a year on the F-35 is gonna save the US economy!!!
Click to expand...
LOL! a pleasure talking with you Grand.
Agree 7.7 bn is'nt going to help, the knife have to cut a whole lot deeper then that.
I even think JSF simply have to go through, as it is imperative US get some income, even if they can't purcase that many themself.
On top of that, China is not yet ready to take the role as the worlds economic engine.
Btw, Stigmata - national economics doesn't work like household economics. First you need to find out net debt, not gross. You'll have to find out public fiscal deficit as % of GDP, you need to look at growth and potential growth and relate it to growth in debt. You have to take into account at what point in the cycle the US econ is to get an idea of imbalances. There are so many other things that can be tweaked, like increasing retirement age.
Click to expand...
Any credible accountant will confirm that potential growth will not save the day.
As for the public, every american household has a 400.000 dollar dept, but with the twist that they hav'nt got a house to back it up.
(It has increased even more after this interview last year)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE"]YouTube - Glenn Beck - The Real Story, Touching the Third Rail[/ame]
Except in Denmark, of course , which went 0.0% in public debt as percentage of GDP this spring and talk is of using the fiscal surpluses for setting up a SWF - like Norway. We also had a law passed last year which regulate retirement age as % of workforce and have a massive private and public savings for retirement.
Click to expand...
Your politicians are the envy of lesser nations :p
 
Last edited:
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Stigmata, US net public liabilities is c. 50% of US GDP.

That's 6.8 trillion USD or 22,500 USD per American in public debt, and please, it is spelled "debt" not "dept".

And Stigmata: please explain how technical insolvency of 5-10% of US households translate into F-35 numbers being cut. (Technical insolvent as in won't be able to pay out the debt if the real estate is sold.)

Anyhow, Stigmata, welcome to the grown up world - 400k USD in debt on your house is nothing.
 
S

stigmata

New Member
Grand Danois said:
That's 6.8 trillion USD or 22,500 USD per American in public debt, and please, it is spelled "debt" not "dept".
Click to expand...
Pardon, on my hand-made keyboard, b and p is next to another, just a typo :D
And Stigmata: please explain how technical insolvency of 5-10% of US households translate into F-35 numbers being cut. (Technical insolvent as in won't be able to pay out the debt if the real estate is sold.)
Click to expand...
Like i said previously: the relatively insignificant (relative to the catastrophic economical situation for USA) cost of the JSF, is....insignificant. The knife have to cut a whole lot deeper.
Anyhow, Stigmata, welcome to the grown up world - 400k USD in debt on your house is nothing.
Click to expand...
That might be true for a few people,- if you have a house to back it up.
But in this situation, none of the americans have.
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
stigmata said:
Pardon, on my hand-made keyboard, b and p is next to another, just a typo :D
Click to expand...
Oki doki. Happens to me also.

stigmata said:
Like i said previously: the relatively insignificant (relative to the catastrophic economical situation for USA) cost of the JSF, is....insignificant. The knife have to cut a whole lot deeper.
Click to expand...
The US isn't facing anything catastrophical. Nowhere near that.

stigmata said:
That might be true for a few people,- if you have a house to back it up.
But in this case, none of the americans have.
Click to expand...
The real value of your home is only relevant the instant they cannot pay their mortgage - they then become technically insolvent because they cannot pay out their mortgage. And it is only 5-10% of Americans who are in risk of that at all.

So when you say "none of the americans" it is actually not the case for 90% or more of the Americans. And for the rest it only becomes a problem when they have to sell their house.
 
Last edited:
E

energo

Member
Meanwhile, latest F-35 test flight shows impressive climb performance.

Comments on the september 15. AA-1 test flight by LMs chief test pilot,
Jon Beesley. The flight was conducted to test performance and handling
with full internal weapon stores of 5000 pounds:

I had the opportunity yesterday to fly the F-35 for the first time with the INTERDICTION COMBAT load of 2-GBU 31 (2000# bombs) and 2 AIM -120 missiles. In current fighters there is an expectation of performance degradation when carrying 5000# of ordinance but the internal carriage made any degradation hard to discern.

The acceleration in MAX AB takeoff was very quick and interestingly there is an increase in the acceleration rate above 120 KCAS. The takeoff roll was very near to the 3500’ prediction. Once airborne I came out of AB relatively soon after lift off and continued to climb and accelerate in MIL power in a 10 deg to 15 deg climb attitude. There was plenty of performance. The climb out with full internal weapons carriage was particularly impressive to me.

The climb rate seemed to be only slightly hindered by the stores carriage with climb angles near 15 deg in MIL power while in a 30 deg bank turn back over the field. Very pleasant to see clean fighter climb rates and angles while carrying a combat load. The chase aircraft still required brief inputs into AB to keep up with me. This is especially impressive because the 325 KCAS climb speed is well below the optimum climb speed profile for the aircraft.

We only did a brief handling qualities test point on this mission but the handling qualities with this combat loading were indistinguishable from the aircraft with no stores.

Landing occurred with 4500# of fuel and was easily stopped inside of an 8000 ft. runway length with brake temperatures cool enough to taxi straight back to the hangar.
Click to expand...
Note that 8000 ft. refers to the runway length, not the stopping distance.
Chase was an F-16 with "most powerful engine" and no weapon stores.
Take off fuel was 13000 pounds.

Note also that this is very early in the flight testing. Subsequent flights will
push the envelope even more.


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
 
F

F-15 Eagle

New Member
stigmata said:
2. Disbandon all military expenses would also stabalize the US economy for a while.
Click to expand...
LOL do I really need to respond to that?:eek:nfloorl:

Grand Danois said:
But I guess those 11 carriers will sail with no fighter jets and so will the amphibs. And the USAF will have a fighter fleet consisting of 183 F-22A; the average age of the fleet is currently 26 years.
Click to expand...
No no they should just get rid of the entire military I mean everything including those 183 F-22s(maybe sell them to nations that don't like the U.S. that sounds like a good idea) and then that would save even more money and help the economy at the expense of national security that is.:rolleyes:
 
V

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
energo said:
Meanwhile, latest F-35 test flight shows impressive climb performance.

Comments on the september 15. AA-1 test flight by LMs chief test pilot,
Jon Beesley. The flight was conducted to test performance and handling
with full internal weapon stores of 5000 pounds:

Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Click to expand...
Thanks Energo, do you have a link to this?


V
 
V

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Believe it or not...

Believe it or not, MP Jensen is actually repeating his claims today, even after the LM/USAF rebuttal...


http://news.smh.com.au/national/jet-fighter-a-worry-lib-backbencher-20080923-4m3p.html

Who is worse, the Norwegian "analyst" Mr. Berg, or the Australian Mr. Jensen? I'd say it's a pretty close race.

V

PS
GD, don't you have any Bergs or Jensens in Denmark? Jensen sounds like a Danish name, perhaps the Australians should ship him back? :)
 
D

Dalregementet

New Member
It´s difficult when media has "decided" to have a specific opinion about if something is good or bad. It´s not only JSF/F35 that has a hard time with rumours, false information etc. Found this from Australia for example:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/24/2372540.htm

In Sweden, where most journalists are left or far left, the attacks on the Gripen project has been continous. Just to give you a flavour of the nature of the "intelligent" arguments that the leftist fraction in Sweden uses, I have translated, roughly, a column from one of Sweden's biggest newspapers - the social democratic paper "Aftonbladet".

Here, one of their columnists, Lotta Gröning, gives her view about the Gripen aircraft. She doesn´t know anything about fighter aircrafts. If what she writes is true or not is not an issue for her. The word "bimbo" gets a new meaning when reading her column... If you think the column is "confused", that is NOT due to the translation...;)
----
http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/lottagroning/article3373107.ab
----
Who shall buy Gripen?

This with Jas – one of Sweden’s most expensive industrial projects. A failed investment for the Swedish defence. The aircraft didn't measure up and too many were ordered. The government does all it can to dump these aircrafts to other countries and some aircrafts even have to be scrapped.

In a desperate attempt to save face, the aircraft manufacturer Saab has designed a more agile aircraft. Some old aircrafts would be upgraded and then Saab has produced a prototype of a more powerful Gripen. The Minister of Defence, Sten Tolgfors hopes to be able to sell this to Norway.

Yesterday he said in Swedish national radio that, if Norway buys Gripen then the Swedish defence will recieve 40 new Gripen.

But it looks gloomy, at least if I shall believe my Norwegian journalist colleagues. The Norwegians do not want Jas and not the Norwegian defence either. The American aircraft, is much better, have much more attack capabilities than Gripen. In addition, On top of this, Norway is a NATO member and there are many who believe that you should trade with your Nato partners - it would be strange otherwise
.
But Sten Tolgfors still hopes – and the supreme commander also I believe, and to get 40 new aircrafts would be a nice thing for them.

:rolleyes:
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
I've copied this from the RAAF thread here on DT. It's indeed the end of the "F-35 clubbed like baby selas" rumour.

gf0012-aust said:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...-29277,00.html

New fighter 'not a war games loser'
September 25, 2008 03:03pm
Article from: AAP

RECENT criticism of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is based on misrepresented data, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says.

Australia is considering making its biggest-ever defence investment - $15bn - by acquiring up to 100 JSF aircraft, from US manufacturer Lockheed, as replacements for its ageing Hornet and F-111 fighter jets.

Critics of the JSF say it is an inferior aircraft to Russian-made fighters being used in the region. They have used the results of a computerised war game to back up their criticism.

Mr Fitzgibbon says he is one of the few people in Canberra to have seen the full classified briefing of the war game in which JSF was supposedly found wanting.

"On the basis of that briefing, I am absolutely satisfied that the data from that exercise was misrepresented,'' he said today.

"The exercise didn't compare particular platform. It was about something entirely different which I can't speak about.''

Mr Fitzgibbon said the media reports of the JSF's vulnerability were puzzling.

"It just bewilders me how anyone could come to that conclusion based on the information provided to me.''

JSF remains in development with just two aircraft flying so far.

It has been persistently criticised as likely to be inferior to Russian built aircraft now entering service across the region.

Lockheed says the Pacific Vision war game conducted last month was a tabletop exercise designed to assess basing and force structure vulnerabilities.

It featured no air-to-air combat exercises and no assessment of different aircraft platforms, the company said.

Claims the JSF is inferior to the Russian aircraft in visual range combat appear to stem from a powerpoint presentation prepared by thinktank the Rand Corporation.

It cites publicly-available data from defence publisher Janes as indicating JSF can't turn, climb, or accelerate as fast as Russian aircraft.

Mr Fitzgibbon was unswayed.

"I remain absolutely confident that if the JSF can produce the capability they have been promising, then we will have the right aircraft for Australia,'' he said.

"The outstanding questions then, of course, are when and at what cost.''
Click to expand...
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
swerve said:
Catching up with Asraam, IRIS-T & Mica IR at last.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but unfortunately the ASRAAM only have a fixed schedule for external integration on the outer pylons - I'm guessing it's for use on F-35B used from CVF.

Read on another board (so don't know of the veracity) that integration on the F-35 runs at 100 mn USD per weapon... Much of the weapons that has been deferred is from the UK... so did the UK dump the money GE/RR F136 instead?
 
E

energo

Member
Interesting quote from Gripen Internationals, Owe Wagermark, about Boeings participation in the danish aquistition programme:

- Super Hornet is a big and outdated airplane. It's good today, but if it's going to be delivered in 2015 and last for another 30-40 years, it's a design that wont hold up.

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/flygplan/article413082.ece

This begs the question: except size, in what significant fashion does Gripen Int. feel the Gripen NG differs from the SH? And surely, if a 4.5 gen. fighter is already getting old, the same can not be said about the F-35, can it?


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
 
harryriedl

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
Grand Danois said:
Yeah, but unfortunately the ASRAAM only have a fixed schedule for external integration on the outer pylons - I'm guessing it's for use on F-35B used from CVF.

Read on another board (so don't know of the veracity) that integration on the F-35 runs at 100 mn USD per weapon... Much of the weapons that has been deferred is from the UK... so did the UK dump the money GE/RR F136 instead?
Click to expand...
im curious about the story of the deferment do you have a link for that as ive not see it anywhere else
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top