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

Status
Not open for further replies.

stigmata

New Member
Sigh~

However, problems have surfaced related to some overheating concerns during high-speed flight-testing, reliability, avionics that perform radar, communication, navigation, identification and electronic warfare functions as well as excess movement of the vertical tails. Modifications are being made to some test aircraft to address some of these problems. For now, however, testing in some areas is restricted. In 2001, we reported on continuing increases in aircraft weight and that more frequent maintenance than planned on the aircraft was being required. We also reported on structural inadequacies in the aft (rear) fuselage and on problems with the separation of some materials within the horizontal tail section and cracking of the clear section of the canopy. In 2002, we again reported that the F/A-22’s performance could be affected by increased aircraft weight and maintenance needs as well as a potential problem with “buffeting”, or excessive movement, of the aircraft’s vertical tails. We also continued to report on problems with the separation of materials within the horizontal tail section and cracking of the clear section of the canopy. We reported last month that the F/A-22 developmental program did not meet key performance goals established for fiscal year 2002 and continues to confront numerous technical challenges, specifically:

• Avionics instability: Software instability has hampered efforts to integrate advanced avionics capabilities into the F/A-22 system. Avionics control and integrated airborne electronics and sensors are designed to provide an increased awareness of the situation around the pilot. The Air Force told us avionics have failed or shut down during numerous tests of F/A-22 aircraft due to software problems. The shutdowns have occurred when the pilot attempts to use the radar, communication, navigation, identification, The cost limitation, before adjustment under the act’s provisions, was $43.4 billon. Performance Issues and electronic warfare systems concurrently. Although the plane can still be flown after the avionics have failed, the pilot is unable to successfully demonstrate the performance of the avionics. Therefore, the Air Force has had to extend the test program schedule. The Air Force has recognized that the avionics problems pose a high technical risk to the F/A-22 program, and in June 2002 the Air Force convened a special team to address the problem. According to the team, the unpredictable nature of the shutdowns was not surprising considering the complexity of the avionics system. The team recommended that the software be stabilized in the laboratory before releasing it to flight-testing. The team further recommended conducting a stress test on the software system architecture to reduce problems and ensure it is operating properly. The Air Force implemented these recommendations. Further, the Air Force extended the avionics schedule to accommodate avionics stability testing and it now plans to complete avionics testing in the first quarter of 2005. However, Air Force officials stated they do not yet understand the problems associated with the instability of the avionics software well enough to predict when they will be able to resolve this problem.

• Vertical fin buffeting: Under some circumstances, the F/A-22 experiences violent movement, or buffeting, of the vertical fins in the tail section of the
aircraft. Buffeting occurs as air, moving first over the body and the wings of the aircraft, places unequal pressures on the vertical fins and rudders.
The buffeting problem has restricted the testing of aerial maneuvers of the aircraft. In addition, unless the violent movement is resolved or the fins strengthened, the fins will break over time because the pressures experienced exceed the strength limits of the fins. This could have an impact on the expected structural life of the aircraft. Lockheed Martin has developed several modifications to strengthen the vertical fins.

• Overheating concerns: Overheating in the rear portions of the aircraft has significantly restricted the duration of high-speed flight-testing. As the F/A-22 flies, heat builds up inside several areas in the rear of the aircraft. Continued exposure to high temperatures would weaken these areas. For example, a portion of the airframe that sits between the engines’ exhausts experiences the highest temperatures. This intense heat could weaken or damage the airframe. To prevent this heat buildup during flight-testing, the aircraft is restricted to flying just over 500 miles per hour, about the same of the speed as a modern jet liner, and significantly below the supercruise requirement. Currently, the F/A-22 flies with temperature sensors in those areas of the aircraft and slows down whenever the temperature approaches a certain level. The Air Force may incorporate a modification that adds copper sheets to the rear of the aircraft to alleviate the problem. The Air Force began these modifications in January 2003 and plans to complete them by July 2003.

• Horizontal tail material separations: F/A-22 aircraft have experienced separations of materials in the horizontal tail and the shaft, which allow the tail to pivot. Because the separations reduce tail strength, the Air Force restricted flight-testing of some aircraft until it had determined that this problem would not affect flight safety during testing. The Air Force and the contractor initially believed that improvements to the aircraft’s manufacturing process would solve this problem. However, the Air Force has determined that it could only solve this problem by redesigning the aircraft’s tail. The Air Force plans to conduct flight-testing of the redesigned tail between February 2004 and April 2004.

• Airlift support requirements: The Air Force estimates it will not meet the F/A-22 airlift support requirement—a key performance parameter.8 The
airlift support requirement is that 8 C-141 aircraft or their equivalents would be sufficient to deploy a squadron of 24 F/A-22s for 30 days without resupply. Today, the Air Force estimates that 8.8 C-141 equivalents will be necessary.

• Impact of maintenance needs on performance: The F/A-22’s performance may also be affected by maintenance needs that exceed established
objectives. The Air Force estimates that the F/A-22 should, at this point in its development, be able to complete 1.67 flying hours between maintenance actions and 1.95 flying hours by the end of development. However, aircraft are requiring five times the maintenance actions expected at this point in development. As of November 2002, the development test aircraft have been completing only .29 flying hours between maintenance actions. Therefore, the development test aircraft are spending more time than planned on the ground undergoing maintenance.

GAO 2003 - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03603t.pdf

If you read the underscore part of the text, can you accept that F-22 had some problem with the tail section ? and by reading previous post, they still have.
This was back in 2003, by that time, the restriction was 500 mph, or cessna speed if you will.
I have read a report from 2007/2008, and i guess Scorpion82 has as well, that nowadays the speed limit is M1.7, i just can't find it now
I'm aware this is not a proof it has a speed limitation, but it is proof they have problem with the tail, and at least last time, they solved it by imposing speed limit.
 
Last edited:

simdude97

New Member
Stigmata you really should stop posting your nonsense and then acting like a jerk with your sighs and your underlining. You first said that F-22s where restricted to M1.7 due to stresses placed on the tail. You claimed this was caused by compromising the design for the sake of maneuverability.

Control sufaces and their hydralic engines etc will have to be larger and stronger.
This increases weight and cost, and decreases speed and range, in addition to presenting a larger RCS.
A more concrete example is F-22, because exessive stress/drag on its tail section, causing the tail to fall apart, F-22 is now prohibited from flying faster then M1.7. - A poor top speed for any warplane, but especially for a fighter.

A smaller tail would be stronger, but decrease agility, but so far, no re-design has been made AFAIK.
1 Day Ago 06:09 AM
When several of us called you out on this and asked for a source you came up with this tidbit of information that is irrelevant to your claim of the F-22 being speed limited. Oh by the way, this piece of old news only applies to the first 70 or so units.

Here ya go, page 88
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07406sp.pdf
It seem they are working on a solution however, Structural Retrofit Program SRP.
We'll see how it turn out, they are expected to be done around 2010...
No where did it say anything about M1.7. Nowhere did it say anything about excess drag. Then you bring up the claim of Scorpion82 and try and pass it off as fact. Scorpion 82 is just another Internet forum user but hey, he supports your claim so he must know something right?

You now go on and quote a GAO report from 2003 that deals with routine problems encountered and long since solved with low rate initial production units. Nothing abnormal here and nothing most other modern weapon systems don;t encounter when they are being developed.

So yeah the F-22 had some problems but nothing you have come up with in any way shape or form supports your assertion of structural weakness in the tail due to excessive drag or a speed limit and your continued insistence that there is a speed limit and that 500 mph (depending on altitude) is over M .85 is Cessna speed just continues to highlight your ignorance and illustrates to me that I should just ignore you unless you have anything of value to say. In fact I am surprised that the moderators have not yet warned you about posting BS without any sources to back them up.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Hehe, so the Gripen might go to Afghanistan for some dirty "Coalition work" afterall. :D

Swedish Air Force performs expeditionary exercise in the UK

13 October 2008

Seven Swedish Air Force (SwAF) Saab JAS 39 Gripen combat aircraft and 100 support personnel deployed to RAF Fairford in southwest England during September and October to practise working from an austere airbase ahead of a possible operational deployment to Afghanistan or Chad next year.

Although the Swedish government and parliament have yet to give the formal go-ahead for the first deployment of SwAF combat aircraft to a war zone since the 1960s UN mission in the Congo, the service is at an advanced stage in its contingency planning.

SwAF personnel from 171 Squadron told Jane's that the last six months of 2009 had been identified as a 'deployment window' and training was under way to prepare the unit for any operational mission.

The squadron's commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Anders Segerby, said his unit was at 90 days' readiness to deploy should any orders be given by his government. Earlier this year, the squadron was attached to the Swedish-led Nordic-EU battlegroup, which was at high readiness for possible rapid deployment to crisis zones.

Col Segerby said the participation in Exercise 'Crown Condor' in the UK alongside RAF personnel from the 140 Expeditionary Air Wing and the Panavia Tornado GR.4 equipped 12 (Bomber) Squadron was an important part of the build-up of his unit's expeditionary skills.

"We are learning a lot here, what we do at a deployed operating base is new," he said.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw081013_2_n.shtml
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Norewegian Industry report recommends Gripen

this just arrived:

http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article374946.ece

My rough translation:
The Defence and Security Union (FSI), the Labour Union (LO), and Norwegian Engineering and Technology Organization (NITO) gives today a crystal clear recommendation in a new report: Gripen NG and not JSF is the preferred option for Norwegian Industry.

Whereas JSF will mainly give production tasks to Norwegian defence industry, a Gripen contract will also give R&D tasks.

The defence industry has obtained information from 50 Norwegian companies. From this information they estimate the potential in the JSF industrial package to approximately 30 billion NOK and the Gripen industrial package to at least 50 billion NOK. The potential is much bigger with Gripen than with JSF. In addition, there is a relatively small percentage of secure projects with the JSF.
As mentioned before the Norwegian gov. considers three factors: Capabilities of the plane; costs; and offsets. It seems Gripen wins hands-down on the last, and also wins on price; F-35 will win on capabilities... so the question remains, how will the centre-left government weigh these factors?

The coming months will certainly be very interesting...


V
 

stigmata

New Member
That will definitely weigh in on the decision .
With regard to centre-left government, a right wing gouvernment would'nt say no to more jobs either.
I wonder how much Norways choise is going to influence Denmark, Holland, India, Switzerland etc ?
Its not too hard to imagine both companies to make Norways deal extra sweet for upcoming affairs...
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
this just arrived:

http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article374946.ece

My rough translation:


As mentioned before the Norwegian gov. considers three factors: Capabilities of the plane; costs; and offsets. It seems Gripen wins hands-down on the last, and also wins on price; F-35 will win on capabilities... so the question remains, how will the centre-left government weigh these factors?

The coming months will certainly be very interesting...


V
Full report here: http://www.fsi.no/sfiles/12/11/1/file/kampflyevaluering_-_sluttrapport.pdf

(in Nor)

The Norwegian Govt has a more pronounced tradition of using defence as part of subsidizing remote regions than Denmark has (although Denmark has been bad at this too). From what has been published from Danish Defence academia, business opportunity should be low in the order of priorities, while requirements should dominate - because it's better that we add most value when commiting labour and use that surplus for importing stuff we need. A report on industry opportunity has been requested by the DK govt as part of complete eval, how high industry will rank is a political decision.

Good groundwork by SAAB.

Not to poison the chalice, but are there any reports out there on what types of products and services SAAB procures in the customer countries? It would look silly if Norway gets 50 bn kr worth of PC drivers licenses in a remote area. (Just teasing a bit, don't worry ;))

http://www.finnmarken.no/lokale_nyheter/article3848452.ece

(in Nor)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Good groundwork by SAAB.

Not to poison the chalice, but are there any reports out there on what types of products and services SAAB procures in the customer countries? It would look silly if Norway gets 50 bn kr worth of PC drivers licenses in a remote area. (Just teasing a bit, don't worry ;))

http://www.finnmarken.no/lokale_nyheter/article3848452.ece

(in Nor)

I have little confidence in public media announcements? why? well, all the JSF partners meet in Brussels next week (and you won't find that in the open media)

The Norwegian team have persistently favoured the JSF on capability compared to other products.

If they change it will be due to political direction - not capability direction.

In fact the issue of the current global economic downturn is an issue for all countries as Defence Depts are now under pressure to maximise local production advantages - and the smart seller will have recognised that by the political noise.

It will be a damn shame if any country picks their warfighting platform based on political direction rather than capability.

I imagine that a few of the partners will be trying to get more local work - The Norwegians have not been vocal about that (in the JSF meetings) in the past. Maybe the current downturn will change that, but I still do not see any compelling attitude shifts on this to date.

Bear in mind that the public media have NO IDEA what is discussed at any of the partner meetings - and in fact have posted information in the past which has been completely contradictory to what actually happened.
 

stigmata

New Member
Grand Danois said:
Good groundwork by SAAB.

Not to poison the chalice, but are there any reports out there on what types of products and services SAAB procures in the customer countries? It would look silly if Norway gets 50 bn kr worth of PC drivers licenses in a remote area. (Just teasing a bit, don't worry )

http://www.finnmarken.no/lokale_nyhe...cle3848452.ece

(in Nor)
Hmm, In South Africa
Denel Saab Aerostructures manufacture Gripen centre and rear fuselage sub-assemblies and stores pylons.

Carl Zeiss Optronics designed, developed and now produce and integrate the Gripen helmet tracking system.

Saab has placed an order with AERO Vodochody for the production of NATO pylons for the Gripen aircraft system. Transfer of production will commence at the Aero facilities at Vodochody in the Czech Republic in autumn this year.

Saab has also recently signed a joint working agreement with Aero establishing a mutual cooperation concerning marketing and sales of the L-159 Combat and Training System. The agreement was also to identify manufacturing work packages (MWP) between Saab and Aero.

Transfer of technology, industrial investments, and joint R&D seem to rank very high on the wish list among customers
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
I have little confidence in public media announcements? why? well, all the JSF partners meet in Brussels next week (and you won't find that in the open media)

The Norwegian team have persistently favoured the JSF on capability compared to other products.

If they change it will be due to political direction - not capability direction.

In fact the issue of the current global economic downturn is an issue for all countries as Defence Depts are now under pressure to maximise local production advantages - and the smart seller will have recognised that by the political noise.

It will be a damn shame if any country picks their warfighting platform based on political direction rather than capability.

I imagine that a few of the partners will be trying to get more local work - The Norwegians have not been vocal about that (in the JSF meetings) in the past. Maybe the current downturn will change that, but I still do not see any compelling attitude shifts on this to date.

Bear in mind that the public media have NO IDEA what is discussed at any of the partner meetings - and in fact have posted information in the past which has been completely contradictory to what actually happened.
Haha! I also prefer best fit to capability needs over offsets, no argument. I'm in principle opposed to offsets, as they're holistically inefficient economy, though I do acknowledge they have some relevance wrt ToT and business development. Hence my ramblings about added value in my prev post.

Anyhow, Norwegian State Sec of Defence had this to say:

Statssekretær Espen Barth Eide (Ap) i Forsvarsdepartementet har slått «kategorisk fast at det er helt uaktuelt å kjøpe et fly som ikke gir betydelige strategiske industripolitiske ringvirkninger.»

or

It has been >>categorically established that it is completely irrevelant to purchase an aircraft that doesn't provide significant strategic industrial-political spinn-offs.<<

Pretty ambigeous, or... :D
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Hmm, In South Africa
Denel Saab Aerostructures manufacture Gripen centre and rear fuselage sub-assemblies and stores pylons.

Carl Zeiss Optronics designed, developed and now produce and integrate the Gripen helmet tracking system.

Saab has placed an order with AERO Vodochody for the production of NATO pylons for the Gripen aircraft system. Transfer of production will commence at the Aero facilities at Vodochody in the Czech Republic in autumn this year.

Saab has also recently signed a joint working agreement with Aero establishing a mutual cooperation concerning marketing and sales of the L-159 Combat and Training System. The agreement was also to identify manufacturing work packages (MWP) between Saab and Aero.

Transfer of technology, industrial investments, and joint R&D seem to rank very high on the wish list among customers
Good examples. But we're talking billions & billions of kroner here...

So it would be easier with an birds-eye view of how the offsets are structured.

Sort of like this:

http://www.offsets2000.net/downloads/janesdefence_article_nov07.pdf
 

Surfinbird

New Member
Dudes, the best opportunity for Norway is the JSF. Not because of local work share and so on with the actual aircraft but getting their Kongsberg NSM integrated onto the platform. If so it will be the only anti-ship missile available off the shelf with the JSF that will fit into the F-35A and F-35C internal weapons bays. This places them in the position of being the sole source supplier to all JSF customers of an ASM. Australia has already contributed to an NSM F-35A integration study and many other F-35 users will want to acquire an OTS ASM solution. So from 2020 onwards the NSM can be the Exocet of the 21st century with hundreds of orders from JSF customers, including the USN, around the world. Better than developing a new wing pylon for the Gripen.
 

stigmata

New Member
Funny you mentioned Kongsberg, i was just going to say Kongsberg would beyond doubt be involved in a deal with SAAB-Norway. :)
I think i've read somewhere on a possible joint development of land attack version of their ASM, not sure tho.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Did USAF find the money for ramping up to 110 F-35 a year plus F-22 and upgrades?

US Air Force eyes fighter cuts to boost modernization-report

Editor: evewen
16 Oct 2008 02:02:11 GMT

WASHINGTON, Oct 15 - The U.S. Air Force is seeking to retire early more than 300 fighter aircraft next year to save $3.4 billion in the hope of funding advanced Lockheed Martin Corp <LMT.N> fighters and other modernization efforts, a published report said on Wednesday, citing internal Pentagon documents.

The plan would retire 137 F-15 and 177 F-16 fighters plus nine A-10 close air support attack aircraft as much as 11 years before the end of their scheduled useful lives, InsideDefense.com, an online news service reported.

"Without accelerating these retirements, we are left with a larger, less-capable force unable to penetrate anti-access environments," the Air Force was quoted as telling John Young, the Pentagon's top arms buyer, in defense of a fiscal 2010 spending plan it submitted in August.

"Anti-access" is Pentagon jargon for spots defended by advanced surface-to-air missiles and state-of-the-art fighters such as those used or planned by Russia and China.

"We must take advantage of this window of opportunity now to be better postured in the future," according to the document quoted in the report. A key Air Force concern is what it calls a fighter "gap" until Lockheed's radar-evading F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is produced in large numbers.

Two F-35s have entered flight test, two are in ground test and 17 are in various stages of assembly, including the first two production-model jets scheduled for delivery to the U.S. Air Force in 2010, Lockheed said last month.

The United States co-developed the F-35 with financing from eight countries: Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.

Air Force representatives did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment. The Air Force had been seeking as much as an average $20 billion a year extra for procurement for the next five years -- an unlikely prospect with the U.S. economy sputtering amid the global financial crisis.

The president of the Air Force Association, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Dunn, said it remained to be seen if Congress would let the Air Force get rid of so many aircraft so early and if Pentagon leaders would grab the savings to fund competing priorities within other armed services.

"There will have to be a lot of dialogue inside the Pentagon between the Air Force and the office of the secretary of defense, probably the secretary himself, before a decision is made," Dunn, a former president of the Pentagon's National Defense University, said in a telephone interview.

Old warplanes typically involve high maintenance costs and may require big outlays for structural upgrades. Still, lawmakers often have blocked Air Force attempts to retire aging warplanes early, partly to preserve jobs at bases from which they are flown in their voting districts.

In the fiscal 2010 budget request being readied at the Pentagon for the next president, the Defense Department is seeking ways to continue production of Lockheed Martin's F-22, the top U.S. dog fighter, while boosting F-35 output to capture quickly economies of scale.

The final say on whether to go on building the F-22 is being left to the president who is to be elected Nov. 4 and to take office Jan. 20, only weeks before the administration's budget request normally is sent to Congress.

The proposed early retirements represent accelerations of seven years in the case of the F-15, six years for the F-16 and 11 years for the A-10, according to the document cited by InsideDefense.com.

The savings would fuel a push to modernize the Air Force's bombers, late-date fighters and go toward a new "nuclear-specific" B-52 bomber rotational squadron and Northrop Grumman Corp <NOC.N>'s RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aerial system expansion, the document was quoted as saying.

An Air Force analysis showed a "smaller but modernized fighter force, when coupled with a robust bomber fleet, can effectively bridge the gap until the F-35 can be produced in required numbers (ramping to 110) and the F-22 can be modified to a common configuration," the service was quoted as saying.

http://news.alibaba.com/article/detail/oceania/100013323-1-us-air-force-eyes-fighter.html
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
I have little confidence in public media announcements? why? well, all the JSF partners meet in Brussels next week (and you won't find that in the open media)

The Norwegian team have persistently favoured the JSF on capability compared to other products.

If they change it will be due to political direction - not capability direction.

In fact the issue of the current global economic downturn is an issue for all countries as Defence Depts are now under pressure to maximise local production advantages - and the smart seller will have recognised that by the political noise.

It will be a damn shame if any country picks their warfighting platform based on political direction rather than capability.

I imagine that a few of the partners will be trying to get more local work - The Norwegians have not been vocal about that (in the JSF meetings) in the past. Maybe the current downturn will change that, but I still do not see any compelling attitude shifts on this to date.

Bear in mind that the public media have NO IDEA what is discussed at any of the partner meetings - and in fact have posted information in the past which has been completely contradictory to what actually happened.
Agree with most of what you say -- however keep in mind that at the end of the day the decision is political, made by politicians, and not by the Norwegian JSF team. Political decisions can to some extent be influenced by the media. Therefore the media reports (even if they are often wrong) are important to the process.

Also note that whereas things discussed on the JSF team meetings are often not disclosed, so are other activities not disclosed in the JSF team meetings. One example is that you write that Norway has not been vocal about offsets. I am sure that's correct but does not necessarily reflect what has happened, I think. Again, I may be misinformed since I am relying on media reports (have not other sources of information) but according to those, Norway has received promises of "offset deals" from LM which are roughly same size as those offered to Holland. Now consider that Holland is tier-two partner wheras Norway is tier-three. Also consider that Norway is projected to purchase 48 planes whereas Holland is projected to purchase 85.

One possible reason Norway has been promised such good "offset deals" from LM would be the competition from Saab -- seems like there is no competition in Holland. This would also imply that LM considers the competition in Norway to be a real one -- perhaps not on the basis of capabilities but on all those other factors (politics, price, and offsets).

Saab claims that they "meet or exceed all requirements" from Norway -- this is probably not correct however if we for a second assume that most requirements can be met by Gripen? F-35 will still be superior, this would be reflected in exceeding more requirements than Gripen. However if the requirements are met there is a risk that the Norwegian government could actually go for the less capable plane.



V
 

Surfinbird

New Member
Funny you mentioned Kongsberg, i was just going to say Kongsberg would beyond doubt be involved in a deal with SAAB-Norway. :)
I think i've read somewhere on a possible joint development of land attack version of their ASM, not sure tho.
Yeah Kongsberg have been working with Lockheed Martin on a multi-role version of the NSM called the Joint Strike Missile (JSM). They must have staid up all night working on that name?

But Saab can't offer Kongsberg the kind of scale of production every F-35 user wanting an ASM can offer. I mean for Australia alone you are looking at 200-400 missiles. How many could the USN require if NSM replaces the AGM-84? Thousands?

Dude there is no way Gripen can offer anything similar and then it would have to compete with the RBS-15 and other ASMs because without internal carry capture and carry campaigns are easy to conduct.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
One example is that you write that Norway has not been vocal about offsets. I am sure that's correct but does not necessarily reflect what has happened, I think.
qualification - the military capability team. not the politicians.

again, I hope that countries don't make stupid decisions based on the current economic downturn influencing workshare over capability.

again, having worked at the military technology seller level as well as the govt purchasing level I'm prepared for despair.

I'm just glad that australia is not in the same politically desperate decision making level as some of the other partners.

if the warfighters pay the price, then IMO thats akin to a criminal decision.
 

stigmata

New Member
Surfinbird said:
But Saab can't offer Kongsberg the kind of scale of production every F-35 user wanting an ASM can offer.
But this gentleman begs to differ from that conclusion

- Gripen, it is clearly the best option from an industrial point of view, "said Torbjorn Sven Farm, CEO of FSI, which is the most important trade organization for defense and security industry in Norway.

Well, he speak on behalf of the entire defence industry, so perhaps Kongsberg would be better off with JSF, but the rest of the industry suffer.
 

Surfinbird

New Member
Well dude my first piece of advice would be never trust someone named after a Bear, or even more so Thor's Bear. Secondly head of industry organisations represent whomever is the source of power within that organisation. Maybe its the little Norwegian SMEs that want to make widgets for the Gripen? Anyway build on strength and Norway is in a very good market position with the NSM they just need to corner it with the fifth generation fighter of the future.
 

stigmata

New Member
I'm of the view that a strong economy and industry is far more important for long tirm security then a fighter could hope for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top