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

[swerve]

So I'm not in your little club and challenging the wrong statements of those 'senior members' means I'm a troll or hobbyist. Boo hoo. Dude I just thought I'd drop in and say hi while a had a few spare days. If its shaken the boat then most people's who's opinions I care for would say that's a good thing. I'm sure you would agree in different circumstances.

Just common politeness, is all. You seem to forget that internet fora are, in effect, private clubs. If you wish to join, obey the rules - and the rules here include showing a little courtesy. Not deference, nothing over the top - just refrain from outright rudeness.

Whatever I might think of a club, I wouldn't see joining it in order to be disruptive as a good thing. If I thought the members stuffy & complacent for example - well, that's up to them. None of my business. No reason for me to go there.

As for wrong statements - well, if you think they're wrong, there's nothing wrong with saying so. But you'd better be prepared to argue your case coherently, & back it up with hard evidence.

 

[gf0012-aust]

What countries is currently using the doctrine of roads as dispersed airfields

Users. Sweden, Switzerland and Germany (they still have collapsable armco's on some of their freeways/autobahns for emergency airstrip use.

Or, as an attacker, launch massive missile strikes at enemy airfields immedietly.

china (for example) has over 1500 airstrips capable of supporting fighter weighted aircraft within 500km of its east sea based coast.

'tis not always easier to knock out airstrips short of using area based WMD's

 

[JohanGrön]

They reconsidered it so much that they are also buying it for their ORBAT.

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Israel Buys F-35A/B Lightning II JSF

Posted by David Eshel at 10/21/2008 11:03 AM CDT


The US Government is offering Israel 25 F-35As and an option for 50 F-35A or B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) capable of deploying to unprepared airfields, relieving Israel's Air Force dependency on main operating bases, vulnerable to enemy missile attacks.

[FONT=times new roman,times]

[/FONT]
The unprecedented $15.2 billion aircraft sale package will extend deliveries of aircraft over a period of about 15 years. The entire sale will be financed through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.

Israel's ambitions, to integrate indigenous weaponry like the Rafael Python 5 air-to-air missile, the Spice family of precision-guided weapons, or installing Israeli sensors, like the IAI/Elta AESA advanced radar warning and active jamming system, could pose serious problems, as F-35 has a highly integrated sensor suite, which is very hard to replace.

As of now, the Israeli version of the F-35 will be configured with the standard JSF systems, but could perhaps be enhanced in the future with indigenous capabilities. The aircraft will be delivered with a standard suite of Electronic Warfare (EW) Systems including unique infrared flares; Command, Control, Communication, Computers and Intelligence/ Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI). To ensure its operational independence, Israel will receive unique systems complying with sovereign requirements, software reprogramming center and Hardware/Software In-the-Loop Laboratory to simulate how indigenous developments are integrated into the system.

Three weeks old news ...

This is not a binding agreement to but JSF:s (A/B) by Israel, the text refers to the DSCA notification that's mandatory for this kind of sales (doesn't have to lead to an actual sale). Israel has committed to nothing (nada zilch, niente). In fact the recent news is that Israel is considering to reduce the number of aircraft in the proposal (that they still may not buy ).

I must say though that the timing of the second coming of this announcement is immaculate from LockMarts viewpoint (I wonder if they had any say in it? :smooth).

Very good example of turning bad news into good news (if it weren't for people like us, the partypoopers). Kudos to LockMart!

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is not a binding agreement to but JSF:s (A/B) by Israel, the text refers to the DSCA notification that's mandatory for this kind of sales (doesn't have to lead to an actual sale).

this is an FMF announcement - not FMS.

It's also more than 3 weeks old as all of the partner nations were aware. 8 countries didn't leak anything for a few months.

Thats discipline.

The Israeli officials who've been in Oz certainly seem to be keen about getting the numbers they expect - there concern is about how soon, as it will mean one of the partners foregoing early delivery, so I'm not sure why there is a continuing belief that they're looking at cutting back.

The closest that I've heard is that they will ask to spread out over a longer period to try and stagger the partners delivery without compromising absolutes - but no reduction in numbers.

For a country that has possibly the best ewarfare F-16's in the business, they're certainly of the view that JSF is a suitable replacement.

 

[harryriedl]

this is an FMF announcement - not FMS.

It's also more than 3 weeks old as all of the partner nations were aware. 8 countries didn't leak anything for a few months.

Thats discipline.

The Israeli officials who've been in Oz certainly seem to be keen about getting the numbers they expect - there concern is about how soon, as it will mean one of the partners foregoing early delivery, so I'm not sure why there is a continuing belief that they're looking at cutting back.

The closest that I've heard is that they will ask to spread out over a longer period to try and stagger the partners delivery without compromising absolutes - but no reduction in numbers.

For a country that has possibly the best ewarfare F-16's in the business, they're certainly of the view that JSF is a suitable replacement.

who would be a candidate to for forgoing early deliveries NL,CAN Turkey to let israle have a few of the early slots.

Has it been announced which squadrons in the USAF and USMC, USN will transfer to the F35

 

[Sintra]

who would be a candidate to for forgoing early deliveries NL,CAN Turkey to let israle have a few of the early slots.

Has it been announced which squadrons in the USAF and USMC, USN will transfer to the F35

Great Britain and Italy.

 

[ASFC]

Great Britain and Italy.

Italy maybe, But at the moment not GB, due to the fact that we have ordered B models, and the first 25 of the Israeli order is for A models, which we have no slots of to give up!

 

[Grand Danois]

On the topic of the security environment (Russian defence expenditure) and the prospect of a revamped Russian military in the North, including the PAK-FA, carriers and nuclear submarines: It seems that Russia will have to either increase taxes, dig into their sovereign wealth funds or borrow the money for their 25% increase in the defence budget next year (and no money for infrastructure).

'Axis of Diesel' forced to change its ways by plummeting oil price

Deutsche Bank estimated in a recent research note that Iran and Venezuela need an oil price of more than $95 a barrel to balance their budgets, and Russia requires a price of $75. That compares to a break-even figure of $55 for Saudi Arabia.


Current price of Brent crude: $65 bbl

http://www.livecharts.co.uk/MarketCharts/brent.php

Commodities and their pricing are obviously also assets that have been decoupled from a supply-demand relationship by speculation fueled by the easy acces to capital...

 

[Dalregementet]

On the topic of the security environment (Russian defence expenditure) and the prospect of a revamped Russian military in the North, including the PAK-FA, carriers and nuclear submarines: It seems that Russia will have to either increase taxes, dig into their sovereign wealth funds or borrow the money for their 25% increase in the defence budget next year (and no money for infrastructure).

'Axis of Diesel' forced to change its ways by plummeting oil price

Deutsche Bank estimated in a recent research note that Iran and Venezuela need an oil price of more than $95 a barrel to balance their budgets, and Russia requires a price of $75. That compares to a break-even figure of $55 for Saudi Arabia.


Current price of Brent crude: $65 bbl

http://www.livecharts.co.uk/MarketCharts/brent.php

Commodities and their pricing are obviously also assets that have been decoupled from a supply-demand relationship by speculation fueled by the easy acces to capital...

Ahh - which propably means a russia less militarily capable than anticipated... Maybe then Norway think that F35 is overkill for a less capable russian air force/navy/air defence?¨

By the way, Saab is making it´s final push throughout Norway right now - Yesterday it was Finnmark and Tröndelag, today Rogaland (Stavanger area) and tomorrow... well, we´ll see.

http://www.finnmarken.no/Innenriks/Politikk/article3855786.ece
http://www.finnmarken.no/lokale_nyheter/article3848587.ece
http://www.tk.no/nyheter/article3807094.ece
http://mm.aftenbladet.no/multimedia/archive/pdf/pdf/STA081021_4.pdf?enkeltside

Hearts & minds!

 

[Grand Danois]

Ahh - which propably means a russia less militarily capable than anticipated... Maybe then Norway think that F35 is overkill for a less capable russian air force/navy/air defence?

That was actually a partial point of mine, yes. If Russia is kept at bay out to the medium term, then we're talking of a nation with the war potential of France, not counting the nukes.

By the way, Saab is making it´s final push throughout Norway right now - Yesterday it was Finnmark and Tröndelag, today Rogaland (Stavanger area) and tomorrow... well, we´ll see.

http://www.finnmarken.no/Innenriks/Politikk/article3855786.ece
http://www.finnmarken.no/lokale_nyheter/article3848587.ece
http://www.tk.no/nyheter/article3807094.ece
http://mm.aftenbladet.no/multimedia/archive/pdf/pdf/STA081021_4.pdf?enkeltside

I guess those potential deals are so economically viable, that they're bound to go ahead regardless of choice of jet... OK there's also the development of Norwegian industry to consider, though I'm no fan of offsets in general.

Hearts & minds!

It's a holistic assessment. Value for money is not based on meeting basic requirements and being cheapest, there are also the wider security context and partners on the operational level to consider; I hinted at the former in my prev post, and the other has been discussed at length.

Will be interesting, the public announcement on choice is supposed to be made Dec. 17-19.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hearts & minds!

I've worked on procurement in a number of areas - and with a few countries at both the assessment and submission level.

I can assure you that the issue of offsets and "emotion" is of the lowest priority.

VFM explicitly excludes making a decision focused on cost and sheer expense.

In fact, I've had a recent situation where a valuation was compromised because the assessment was geared towards industry participation and end user initial cost.

 

[stigmata]

I guess SAAB know what they are doing, but does'nt it look odd for a company to buy services for twice as much as they are selling from a high vages country like Norway ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I guess SAAB know what they are doing, but does'nt it look odd for a company to buy services for twice as much as they are selling from a high vages country like Norway ?

No. see prev. or look at the difference between outright buy, offset buy, FMF and FMS (in US terms)

We assess things on more than just price - and as I said before, every modern country I've worked with or know of explicitly excludes cost as critical purchasing vector. we explicitly "park" cost as a determinant.

national interest over rides cost. (look at the czechs, their turnaround was singularly influenced due to the idiotic behaviour of a US Govt official. The US Govt won't be allowing that to happen again if it can help it.

might Norway consider the Gripen? - of course, but IMHO not for some of the reasons that are touted as wunderbar selection vectors.

some of the comments that have been generated in here remind me of the pro-Rafale and pro-Flanker comments (enthusiastic but again IMO, creative on logic)

 

[stigmata]

What i meant was: How can it make economic sense for SAAB to buy twice as much as they sell ? (with regards to the very costly labour in Norway)

(look at the czechs, their turnaround was singularly influenced due to the idiotic behaviour of a US Govt official. The US Govt won't be allowing that to happen again if it can help it.

Can you tell me something about it ? me no understand

 

[JohanGrön]

On the topic of the security environment (Russian defence expenditure) and the prospect of a revamped Russian military in the North, including the PAK-FA, carriers and nuclear submarines: It seems that Russia will have to either increase taxes, dig into their sovereign wealth funds or borrow the money for their 25% increase in the defence budget next year (and no money for infrastructure).

'Axis of Diesel' forced to change its ways by plummeting oil price

Deutsche Bank estimated in a recent research note that Iran and Venezuela need an oil price of more than $95 a barrel to balance their budgets, and Russia requires a price of $75. That compares to a break-even figure of $55 for Saudi Arabia.


Current price of Brent crude: $65 bbl

http://www.livecharts.co.uk/MarketCharts/brent.php

Commodities and their pricing are obviously also assets that have been decoupled from a supply-demand relationship by speculation fueled by the easy acces to capital...

It seems Russia is one of the hardest hit by the current financial crisis. A very large proportion of their stockexchange capital was "fast money" i.e short term investors seeking high return on their invested capital selling off their assets when the trend turns ... that time has now come.

€25 billion has left the country in August and September alone, according to a high ranking public servant in the Russian administration. "No one could even in their wildest dreams predict the extent of this" he says.

link

 

[Dalregementet]

I guess SAAB know what they are doing, but does'nt it look odd for a company to buy services for twice as much as they are selling from a high vages country like Norway ?

Saab doesn´t neccesarily have to buy, also "creating value"/joint business development can be included. In this, more business opportunies emerges that can be very profitable. Working right now on a quote that are just that - the company I work for cooperates with many companies regarding offset which is a good business - adds a few more percent on the revenue, which on the bottom line can be significant

 

[Dalregementet]

I've worked on procurement in a number of areas - and with a few countries at both the assessment and submission level.

I can assure you that the issue of offsets and "emotion" is of the lowest priority.

VFM explicitly excludes making a decision focused on cost and sheer expense.

In fact, I've had a recent situation where a valuation was compromised because the assessment was geared towards industry participation and end user initial cost.

It should be but in this case, I don´t think so. When reading Norwegian newspapers you see that there is a big discussion about this procurement and it is a hot political issue. There are elections coming up in about 6 months and this procurement is important in that context, i.e. creating jobs, spending etc but of course most important - overall national security.

 

[Falstaff]

What i meant was: How can it make economic sense for SAAB to buy twice as much as they sell ? (with regards to the very costly labour in Norway)

Well if it didn't make sense economically they wouldn't do it, would they?

Offset deals are not a simple "we sell you for x € and buy from you for y €"-thing, which in fact wouldn't make sense. They are a very complex thing actually, and if Sweden didn't have strong economic ties to Norway already it wouldn't be possible for them to offer such a deal.
First of all, these deals mostly cover a long period of time. Secondly, they often contain (industrial) services you would've bought anyway but perhaps not in this particular country.
Example: Norway buys Gripen. Sweden needs 3 new hydropower plants and plans to buy them over the next 12 years. As Sweden knows that Norway has considerable expertise in this area, they offer Norway to build these plants instead of e.g. Germany as an offset. In addition they decide to source from a norwegian supplier (who can deliever comparable quality and cost!) instead of a french one for their next Saab SUV. As I said, just an example.
What I wanted to say is, you certainly make economic sense of it. If you can't, there will be no deal. The deal must be profitable. Secondly, I wanted to show that these deals have several levels, in the example a nationwide (power plant provider) and a company level (choice of automotive supplier).
As the Western European countries are very closely connected anyway and often have unique capabilities you can utilise it is quite easy to generate offsets in comparison to dealing with e.g. a North African country.

national interest over rides cost. (look at the czechs, their turnaround was singularly influenced due to the idiotic behaviour of a US Govt official. The US Govt won't be allowing that to happen again if it can help it.

might Norway consider the Gripen? - of course, but IMHO not for some of the reasons that are touted as wunderbar selection vectors.

GF, sometimes I'm not quite sure what you want to state. I don't know about Australia and the countries you've been working with, but here in Western Europe, it's all about hearts and minds. Especially as the military doesn't enjoy that much enthusiasm in general. If Saab manages to win hearts and minds of the people in Norway and can make their offer appear cheaper, yet sufficient for a country that doesn't invade other countries on a regular basis, then the political deciders will go for it, no matter what the military says. You're talking about countries where nobody sticks "support our troops" to the bumper.

 

[Sintra]

Italy maybe, But at the moment not GB, due to the fact that we have ordered B models, and the first 25 of the Israeli order is for A models, which we have no slots of to give up!

Well actualy, untill now Great Britain only ordered two F-35B for the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation phase. And almost half of those planned 138 units have been moved to "the right".

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF, sometimes I'm not quite sure what you want to state. I don't know about Australia and the countries you've been working with, but here in Western Europe, it's all about hearts and minds. Especially as the military doesn't enjoy that much enthusiasm in general. If Saab manages to win hearts and minds of the people in Norway and can make their offer appear cheaper, yet sufficient for a country that doesn't invade other countries on a regular basis, then the political deciders will go for it, no matter what the military says. You're talking about countries where nobody sticks "support our troops" to the bumper.

I've never seen "support our troops" stickers on the bumpers of cars in australia, new zealand, canada, germany, denmark, spain, the netherlands, taiwan, austria and portugal.

I have seen them on american cars.

I guess I'm not talking about america then...

You do realise what access norway gets from the US at a number of levels? that the swedes can't even remotely hope to match (the danes have the same attitude from my dealings with them as well)

just from the briefings we see that involve norway I know that sweden can't even remotely match that degree of info and material access. The US is more important to Noway than Sweden is - irrespective of geography.