Royal Norwegian Air Force news and discussion

[ASFC]

I care

Not that much, but when it comes to 'rumor mangling' of our character or technology I react, just as you would. Let me see, if somebody tells you that Gripen is sh**, then it's ok? If someone tells you why its not, giving you links as to why then...It doesn't matter?

Impressive.

The customer disagreed with Saab over costs and capabilities-and bought another product instead. Whilst I agree with your sentiment that if someone tells you that the "Gripen is sh**", that you shouldn't just sit back and let that rumour destroy your reputation, Norway hardly said that, did they?

I'm sorry, but this is the first time (in my experience) that I have ever seen a Defence contractor throw its teddy out of the pram so spectacularly because it lost a competition-and in my books such whinging is doing more to destroy its reputation than the decision of the Norweigen MoD ever will.

That and i'm sick of the topic dominating several threads on DT where the argument goes round and round in circles-is one thread not enough?

 

[Grand Danois]

GD, do you have any description of what Saab includes in their "guaranteed, full life cycle costs" in their offer to Denmark? Or are you merely speculating?

V

The description is pretty accurately in public - and the included upgrades in the pipeline will only take the GNG to SH blk I standards; from then on any customer is captive on an upgrades intensive orphan - thats the financial risk that the Norwegians included and which the Danish eval team will also include in TCO as per their statements on their page - say hello to another potential SAAB "surprise".

 

[gf0012-aust]

And here you find a blog discussing the JFS and the Rand pdf. where Dr Stillion in his pre-briefing report for the US Pacific Vision war games exercise held in August, assessed the controversial JSF as being "double inferior". "Inferior acceleration, inferior climb, inferior sustained turn capability," he wrote. "Can't turn, can't climb, can't run." http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/
It's interesting.

And the Rand report only, if that is what you want to see
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf
But the blog above is a recommended read before you read it.

Yoron, that "RAND" report was comprehensively dismissed - and there are numerous posts in the forum which identified flaws in the argument. In addition RAND denied involvement.

Why did RAND deny involvement - well one of the reasons was perhaps the fact that the author made claims about air combat and tactical statements in relation to the software simlations and exercises.

The problem is (and where all the naysayers were made to look publicly ignorant - if not petulant) is that they cited Falconview.

I've had some peripheral involvement with Falconview (work is fun ) - it wasn't used and can't be used for tactical air combat evaluation.

It would be akin to publicly stating that your CRT television could cook your dinner just because it has a "window" and looks like a microwave oven.

The author and the promoters of the so-called "RAND" expose didn't even have the smarts to work out that the application they were hinging their arguments on couldn't even be used for tactical/combat air planning.

The simulations used for tac/combat air planning and simulations is Brawler - Falconview is a logistical planning solution.

When they sim JSF against potential "red" air they use Brawler (we've even simmed stillborn aircraft such as Mig-35)

 

[freethinker]

Im sure everyone with a stake in the JSF program ridiculed the report
Anyway for the rough calculations in that report whatever program they used was hardly an issue since any comp-sci novice could model it in Excell if he wanted to. They even gave USA the benefit of perfect combat conditions.

Anyway regarding Norway. The issue is not that they selected JSF, its that they twisted statistics and doctored numbers to futhrer their agenda and made Saab look bad.
They could have just said that they wsmply prefered the F-35 over the Gripen and been done with it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Im sure everyone with a stake in the JSF program ridiculed the report
Anyway for the rough calculations in that report whatever program they used was hardly an issue since any comp-sci novice could model it in Excell if he wanted to. They even gave USA the benefit of perfect combat conditions.

How does one get a Logistics program to become a Tactical Combat simulation? If you can't understand the basics, stay away from the discussion.

Explain to me how an excel program is going to be even remotely able to simulate something like Brawler?

These idiots claimed to be able to measure reflection and refraction tests results without even understanding how pole tests are done.

Anyway regarding Norway. The issue is not that they selected JSF, its that they twisted statistics and doctored numbers to futhrer their agenda and made Saab look bad.
They could have just said that they wsmply prefered the F-35 over the Gripen and been done with it.

No, Sweden can fit out some of the suite, but they do not have the same right of access to technology like both Denmark and Norway do. They're both tech sharing partners beyond Swedens current level of access. (and the Swedish Govt has recognised this as they are obviously shifting their stance on how to do business. I said this 12 months ago, and I said the same to Indian posters when they almost hysterically disagreed with me on the shift away from Russian technology - well, I'm reinforcing the fact that Sweden is shifting its stance - and the Gripen no-sale is but a side show legacy fast tracking that political shift to try and expand Swedish military industry into a broader consumer base. SAAB and Kockums are two examples where this is enexorably happening. It's already happened to a number of Swedish military tech companies that I deal with.

I find it extraordinary that again we have people who are willing to question the technical competence of RNAF pilots and aviation engineers just because their favourite plane didn't get picked. So far every country that has picked JSF gets labeled as morally deficient in some form or fashion. Thats just a nonsense. SAAB obviously have not delivered a capability that gives fellow Nordic air forces sufficient comfort to look beyond JSF.

Don't drag this post down with more whingeing - get over it and look forward.

 

[freethinker]

I find it extraordinary that again we have people who are willing to question the technical competence of RNAF pilots and aviation engineers just because their favourite plane didn't get picked. So far every country that has picked JSF gets labeled as morally deficient in some form or fashion. Thats just a nonsense. SAAB obviously have not delivered a capability that gives fellow Nordic air forces sufficient comfort to look beyond JSF.

Don't drag this post down with more whingeing - get over it and look forward.

Nobody questions the pilots and engineers. We question the bureaucrats and their bean counter minions who twist and fabricate numbers.
I have no issues with the JSF only with how the whole thing was handled. They should have simply said that Gripen doesnt meet their expectations for the future and left it at that. Not that anyone could have any other expectations other than the JSF is the second coming of christ if the hype is to be beleived.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Nobody questions the pilots and engineers. We question the bureaucrats and their bean counter minions who twist and fabricate numbers.

Do you seriously think that if any of the evaluation team members on the RNAF assessment team thought that they were being manipulated would stay silent? I see this promoted as a defence for 7 other JSF team members as well, that somehow the teams professional integrity stays suppressed due to a political decision. Believe me, Norway, like any democracy would have RNAF officers squealing like piglets if they thought that they were being co-erced

I have no issues with the JSF only with how the whole thing was handled. They should have simply said that Gripen doesnt meet their expectations for the future and left it at that.

RNAF has said it doesn't meet their expectations.

Not that anyone could have any other expectations other than the JSF is the second coming of christ if the hype is to be beleived.

Similarly, some of the rubbish trotted out by Gripen, Shornet, F-15, Rafale advocates is just as tiresome.

There's no shortage of fan clubbers for any capability - the bottomline is that actual warfighters and team members would be making noises if they thought they were being manipulated.

Out of all the JSF partners - how many have had members of their assessment and tech evaluation teams resign or leave their positions due to unwarranted Govt interference?

Govts influence only so much - if we went on the power of Govt to intervene, then Australia would be using F-22's 5 years ago when Richard Armitage stated that we would be favourably looked upon. The reality however is different. In RAAFs case they managed to convince both side of Govt that the JSF was more relevant than F-22 - irrespective of what Armitage said. I would assume that every other air force evaluation team (and that includes warfighters, logisiticians, engineers and defence sector scientists) has travelled the same procurement road.

France and Dassault/EADS did itself no end of damage and credibility when it impugned the integrity of the Sth Koreans and Singaporeans due to their F-15 decisions. one would hope that the Swedish Govt and SAAB have been smart enough to read those tea-leaves as well.

Atlas did the same in Australia. Sweden doesn't need to learn that lesson, as a critical observor one would assume that watching others make mistakes in engagement and post event "debate" would suffice.

 

[JWCook]

Do you seriously think that if any of the evaluation team members on the RNAF assessment team thought that they were being manipulated would stay silent?

Thats right! - Governments cannot keep honest service men silent, notice the lack of USAF personnel saying that they need more f-22's in the face of proposed cuts.

They would instantly disobey orders and talk to the press if they thought that the governments were interfering in military matters.nfloorl:

I don't know about you I've known governments to lie and I've kept silent, I justified it to myself by saying they must have a good reason...:unknown

You cannot know what what they are all saying privately, the UK for one is very concerned with certain aspects of tech transfer and hopes to have all its concerns proved wrong by the operation of its 3 test aircraft, and the South Korean decision IMHO was a very bad example to use.


Cheers

 

[Vivendi]

Do you seriously think that if any of the evaluation team members on the RNAF assessment team thought that they were being manipulated would stay silent? I see this promoted as a defence for 7 other JSF team members as well, that somehow the teams professional integrity stays suppressed due to a political decision. Believe me, Norway, like any democracy would have RNAF officers squealing like piglets if they thought that they were being co-erced

Regarding "squealing like piglets": The current Norwegian government decided to move a military site from south-west Norway to Northern Norway; in this process they supressed the real costs of this relocation. Somebody in the Norwegian military leaked the info to the press. The Norwegian minister of defence immediately instructed the police to investigate, since "military information had been leaked"... The opposition parties were furious -- first, because the minister had hidden the real costs of the relocation and second because she wants to press charges towards the guy who leaked the real costs to the press...

So yes, if considered important one does see people leak to the press, however it can and will cost....

I don't think anybody on the Norwegian evaluation team were manipulated -- if anybody were manipulated then perhaps it was the Swedes. It seems the Swedes were given the impression they actually had a chance of winning, whereas, in reality, they never stood a chance.

The Norwegian government (not the RNoAF) decided they needed a competition, perhaps to get a better deal with the Americans. Eurofighter was in the game, but seemed to be an "unreliable" competitior. AFAIK, at that time Gripen was not even in the competition presumably because they did not think they could win.

The Norwegian government worked hard to convince the Swedes that Gripen was a real option, and it paid off -- in the end the Swedes believed they could win, and they entered the competition.

One critical aspect of letting the Swedes believe they had a chance of winning was to create a list of specs that Gripen NG would meet -- in terms of range, payload, interoperability, etc. With regards to RCS, the requirement was that it should be significantly less than F16, but no further requirements above and beyond that, in particular there were no "VLO" requirements.

In addition to these "baseline specs", however, the planes also had to succeed in some very tough simulations. This is where Gripen (and all other 4. gen planes for that matter) failed. Only a 5. gen a/c with VLO frame and 5. gen sensor would succeed in those scenarios.

The Norwegian government could say that they had stuck to the rules -- yes, Gripen could meet the "baseline specs". Alas, there were also these simulations and here Gripen failed.

The evaluation team and RNoAF are happy, since their recommendation clearly was JSF, and the government decided to go with their recommendation.

The only unhappy ones were the Swedes...

Personally I think Gripen is a great plane -- however it is what it is. An excellent 4.5 gen multirole fighter, small, fast, maneuvrable, at a low cost. It is not a 5. gen plane capable of operating in the vicinity of double-digit Russian SAMs. Thats what the RNoAF asked for and that's what they will be getting.

I wish Saab all the best and hope NG will win several competitions, I would still like to see NG fly

V

 

[Vivendi]

The description is pretty accurately in public - and the included upgrades in the pipeline will only take the GNG to SH blk I standards; from then on any customer is captive on an upgrades intensive orphan - thats the financial risk that the Norwegians included and which the Danish eval team will also include in TCO as per their statements on their page - say hello to another potential SAAB "surprise".

We have talked about this before -- Most of the stuff in the NG is basically the upgrade path for all current Gripen customers. Thus if Sweden, Checkia, Hungary, South Africa and Thailand want to keep their Gripen up-to-date in the future they will share upgrade costs with any NG customers. The engine may be an exception, however the NG customers will share engine with the SH.

Today, Saab acts more like a systems integrator than anything else. Subsystems are picked from both European and American contractors and integrated into Gripen. COTS is a key word.

Because of this I don't see a huge financial risk with Gripen NG.

Not that I see a huge financial risk with F-35 either, given the large number of planes that will be produced.

V

 

[yoron]

"t is not a 5. gen plane capable of operating in the vicinity of double-digit Russian SAM:s. Thats what the RNoAF asked for and that's what they will be getting."

Now I wouldn't bet on that they will survive the new Russian generation of SAM:s. There have been some unfavorable reports on that. Also, the JSF according to some sources don't have to be all that 'agile' any way. That as it will ,according to those, have a 'state of the art' IR defense, making missiles impossible to approach without detection. Sort of brilliant that one

And no, no matter what some think I still believe that there is a legitimate reason for reacting when I read the ideas some have here. But you've seen what facts I could present you, want to present it otherwise, show me the facts too, not just 'opinions'.

--
Btw: that last I wrote, not you Vivendi

 

[Grand Danois]

We have talked about this before -- Most of the stuff in the NG is basically the upgrade path for all current Gripen customers. Thus if Sweden, Checkia, Hungary, South Africa and Thailand want to keep their Gripen up-to-date in the future they will share upgrade costs with any NG customers. The engine may be an exception, however the NG customers will share engine with the SH.

Today, Saab acts more like a systems integrator than anything else. Subsystems are picked from both European and American contractors and integrated into Gripen. COTS is a key word.

Because of this I don't see a huge financial risk with Gripen NG.

Not that I see a huge financial risk with F-35 either, given the large number of planes that will be produced.

V

The diff between technological risk (which is relatively low on both cases and with GNGs immediate upgrade path in mind) and financial risk is that the risk of the GNG solution beyond pipeline is only amortized over 50 airframes as opposed to 3500.

You just don't know how many customers there will be to technology that is specific to your solution.

 

[Grand Danois]

Personally I think Gripen is a great plane -- however it is what it is. An excellent 4.5 gen multirole fighter, small, fast, maneuvrable, at a low cost. It is not a 5. gen plane capable of operating in the vicinity of double-digit Russian SAMs. Thats what the RNoAF asked for and that's what they will be getting.

I wish Saab all the best and hope NG will win several competitions, I would still like to see NG fly

V

And perhaps the JSF is a better player with minimal support over the Barents Sea, etc...

But second that: would like to see the GNG as a successful product as well.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thats right! - Governments cannot keep honest service men silent, notice the lack of USAF personnel saying that they need more f-22's in the face of proposed cuts.

They would instantly disobey orders and talk to the press if they thought that the governments were interfering in military matters.nfloorl:

its happened in australia lots of times - have you been asleep at the wheel?

I don't know about you I've known governments to lie and I've kept silent, I justified it to myself by saying they must have a good reason...:unknown

governments eventually get found out - there is no sacredness in asbsolute privilege here. There are more than enough examples in recent times of leaks to the press, and sometimes the Govt bears the burden of signioficant involvement. The manipulation of APA is a classic example.

You cannot know what what they are all saying privately, the UK for one is very concerned with certain aspects of tech transfer and hopes to have all its concerns proved wrong by the operation of its 3 test aircraft, and the South Korean decision IMHO was a very bad example to use.

I sure as hell know what some of the JSF partners are saying - or are they all on drugs and blindsided by the joys of the job. I sure as heck would not want to do a job where journalists, teenagers and amateurs belittle my professional opinions just because they think that the public is being shivved a conspiracy. Thats what I find amusing, lots of naysayers are more than willing to believe OSINT and unqualified commentary over people who do actually do it for a job and who are professionals.

Cheers

It would be if we could get decent commentary and not fall back on "'blue book"' type attitudes

 

[longbow]

The NASAMS II is said to have a capability to engage cruise-missiles - I wonder, does this include LO missiles(like the NSM), or does it depend on radar when engaging targets? Slide 9 on this pps says something about "search and track" via a passive optical sensor:

http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00052/NASAMS_II_52097a.ppt#319,9,MSP - MULTI SENSOR PLATFORM

Is it supposed to cue the radar, or is it the other way round? Doing a volume-scan using optics is hard isn't it`?

Anyone in the know?

 

[JWCook]

its happened in australia lots of times - have you been asleep at the wheel?
governments eventually get found out - there is no sacredness in asbsolute privilege here. There are more than enough examples in recent times of leaks to the press, and sometimes the Govt bears the burden of signioficant involvement. The manipulation of APA is a classic example.

I must have been asleep - who was held to account?, name one Australian minister who bore the burden. - Peter Reith never had to face anything!.

They don't get found out nearly enough to put them off doing it on a regular basis.

I sure as hell know what some of the JSF partners are saying - or are they all on drugs and blindsided by the joys of the job. I sure as heck would not want to do a job where journalists, teenagers and amateurs belittle my professional opinions just because they think that the public is being shivved a conspiracy. Thats what I find amusing, lots of naysayers are more than willing to believe OSINT and unqualified commentary over people who do actually do it for a job and who are professionals.

And where is your professional opinion being slighted? are the ones you talk to saying that it all hinges on what the JSF test articles actually do rather than whats on the brochure? This is what I'm saying, or are they 'all on drugs and blindsided' by the brocures?.


If you want to argue with what I said then take it up with General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue source:-http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdfence/107/8112511.htm even journalists, teenagers and amateurs can read, and some can make informed comments.

{Nov 2008 on the JSF} We will then see how that OT&E programme runs, as the Admiral says. That will tell us a number of things: does the aircraft do "what it says it does on the tin"? Do we have the operational sovereignty? Do we have the technology transfer that we want?

If he's not that sure, now come you are?

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

I must have been asleep - who was held to account?, name one Australian minister who bore the burden. - Peter Reith never had to face anything!.

They don't get found out nearly enough to put them off doing it on a regular basis.

the current Chief of the Defence Force contradicted what the (then) Minister said.

VADM Chris Barrie did likewise.

It seems that uniforms make sure that they get their version of events across irrespective of what the Minister may say. (and they keep their jobs and get promoted for being honest)

And where is your professional opinion being slighted? are the ones you talk to saying that it all hinges on what the JSF test articles actually do rather than whats on the brochure? This is what I'm saying, or are they 'all on drugs and blindsided' by the brocures?.

Actually, I refer to all the trolls who seem to think that they know more about aircraft and aircombat than people like John Harvey with over 5000 hrs. But then again, there's no shortage of experts when their favourite plane gets knocked back.

If you want to argue with what I said then take it up with General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue source:-http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdfence/107/8112511.htm even journalists, teenagers and amateurs can read, and some can make informed comments.

see above. seems to me that we don't have a problem in NACC but the UK does - thats their problem - or hold on, its another conspiracy by the biggles set to get their aircraft over the line

a lot of people can read, but the crap chucked into the room to defend their favourite aircraft knows no bounds. Now I ask you, when the head of NACC says that we are comfortable with access, when he explicitly says to the Janes journalist(s) in very plain and simple english that there is no difference between a RAAF JSF and a USAF JSF - are you suggesting that he's a liar. Again, if you don't believe me (and I was at the mar 12 briefing) then feel free to wait for others who were also at that briefing to challenge my response and call me out for fibbing.

The Janes journo seemed to understand it because when I saw him the next morning he made it pretty clear that there was no room for misunderstanding - and I've got nothing to do with the prog. This involved fit, kit and cost.

If he's not that sure, now come you are?

NACC are sure and they're the ones who count - or do we ignore people collectively with over 30,000 combat hours, who've flown mixed platforms, exchanged in various airforces and who seemingly I would regard as professionals. But I guess we should pay attention to the concerns of someone in another airforce with different reqs and needs?

Cheers

Indeed. BTW, you do remember the price the RAF exchange pilot quoted at the R1 session. There are another 2 (apart from you and me) in this forum who were there if you've forgotten.

 

[yoron]

Looking at Australia from over the seas I think you are making a wise choice in going for an American solution. You already have a close cooperation in your Sub development and you are after all a somewhat isolated Island Nation with deep blue water around you. America is the main proponent for using deployable deep water forces 24/7 and should be Australia's foremost natural ally (The British included naturally) in case of any conflict. Nato seems to have some internal discussions, as not all newly incoming states are happy with all the decisions made. It is always good to be able to count on your Ally to be there in case of need. And if so, you will benefit from a system as adapted to American fighting techniques as possible,. What you need should always be compared to what your real geographical situation is.

 

[Palnatoke]

A quick question:

What's actually the status of JSF, do we f.ex. know the fly away price?

 

[JWCook]

NACC are sure

Then I'm surprised.

Indeed. BTW, you do remember the price the RAF exchange pilot quoted at the R1 session. There are another 2 (apart from you and me) in this forum who were there if you've forgotten.

I don't recall it as it didn't seem significant, If you say it was 150M then I would assumed he wasn't talking about a flyaway cost, or some kind of hybrid price, Was it $ or £?, and wasn't that briefing in confidence?...
The best open source for the Typhoon was the Austrian deal that was broken down into all aspects including finance costs over X years, plus some others sources which are not anywhere near the 150M figure, but it fits if he meant AU$

I wish I had have asked him about the F-22 vs Typhoon dact that never happened, it may now be less sensitive in light of the F-22 present situation.

I didn't wait as there were far too many high ranks surrounding him for any conversation at the end of that briefing.

Perhaps next time, just give me a heads up if another one comes along ;-).

Cheers