F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The title in Ares blog seems misleading to me... IF the reports are confirmed it simply means that the Danish DoD will recommend the SH not the F-35. Even if that's the case (and it still remains unconfirmed) then that does not automatically imply that Denmark will decide to buy SH.

Like in most countries the decision is political/economical. I agree with GD; It would be a big surprise if Denmark buys anything but F-35. I also would be surprised if the Danish DoD actually will recommend the SH over F-35 -- let's wait and see.
Another thing which makes me wonder is why the SH would be chosen as an F-35 alternative? I would think that Denmark being an F-16 operator would be more apt to a late-model F-16 Block 60. While this is a different and more modern variant of the current F-16 operated, is broadly similar in terms of operations, maintenance, etc. The SH OTOH is an entirely different aircraft which everyone involved in operating it would need to be skilled up.

I do think the F-35 is still the better long-term option for Denmark (and essentially all the other partner-nations) but if Denmark does ultimately choose something else, there does seem to be better options.

-Cheers
 

Palnatoke

Banned Member
What I find surprising is that it is the danish millitary that's apparently recommending the SH, or rather not recomending the JSF.

I am not surprised that the JSF is falling through, it's simply too expensive for the current security scenario, state finances and foreign policy recurements. The danish state is very cost aware, and selling the idea that we need new airplanes for 40B DKK (that's the double of the annual defense budget) is not easy, neither to the public nor other sectors of the state.

Maybe, it's a stratetical choise: We won't get the JSF due to costs/need, and we don't like the idea that we have to keep our f16s, so we recommened the SH, which might go through....
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
What I find surprising is that it is the danish millitary that's apparently recommending the SH, or rather not recomending the JSF.

I am not surprised that the JSF is falling through, it's simply too expensive for the current security scenario, state finances and foreign policy recurements. The danish state is very cost aware, and selling the idea that we need new airplanes for 40B DKK (that's the double of the annual defense budget) is not easy, neither to the public nor other sectors of the state.

Maybe, it's a stratetical choise: We won't get the JSF due to costs/need, and we don't like the idea that we have to keep our f16s, so we recommened the SH, which might go through....
I'll agree with Todjaeger that an extension of the use of F-16s are much mre likely than the acquisition of F-18 (I didn't share this view until recently, until I realised what was in their mind).

What the Danish article says is basically that the SH carries the least risk in the eyes of the PO (PNK) and this should be the reason for the choice. Quite frankly, this hasn't been such a high ranking factor before and I'm thinking that the journo might be extrapolating/speculating as of the final military recommendation.

Further, the boxes which have been checked off so far by analysts and political committees, are in favor of the JSF. Those boxes are foreign policy needs and security outlook, specifically!

Lastly, the defence budget is a tad bigger than 20 billion dkk. The acquisition and implementation of the F-35 isn't going to cost more than 20-25 billion. This would swallow up the entire military acquisition budget for 4-5 years, though.
 
Last edited:

Pyongyang

Banned Member
I can understand why the Danish does not want to spend 40 bDK on jetfighters when they have no enemies in the area at all...it does not make any sence. I am sure some F-35 could be ordered later if needed, but theres so many other american and european alternatives that it does not make sence for a nation like denmark.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
...and the Danish money still goes to Uncle Sam, so He can't be THAT hurt...
It will be interesting to see if Norway will follow Denmark's thoughts or if they
still insist that they have a binding JSF price and that the cost increases do
not affect them ;-)

– Dyrere kampfly fÃ¥r ingen konsekvenser for Norge - Rbnett
Basing an acquisition decision on the fact that some people don't like Americans doesn't seem entirely healthy to me. ;)
 

B3LA

Banned Member
Basing an acquisition decision on the fact that some people don't like Americans doesn't seem entirely healthy to me. ;)
Hmm ? I think both Norway, Denmark and the rest of the Partner Nations "like" the Americans.
But as the JSF goes expensive and more important, delayed, buying other US fighters
will be an easier Partner decision to make than buying a Eurofighter.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Hmm ? I think both Norway, Denmark and the rest of the Partner Nations "like" the Americans.
But as the JSF goes expensive and more important, delayed, buying other US fighters
will be an easier Partner decision to make than buying a Eurofighter.
All things being equal, I'd actually prefer to buy European, however my overriding view is that we should by the most appropriate equipment to meet a set requirement - be it of US or EU origin.

There were three models proposed for the future of the fighter air arm in DK and I'd say that Rafale and Eurofighter fits none of them. F-35A fits the politically preferred model of coalition operations, while F-16 and Gripen C/D/E/F fits the lightweight air sovereignty only models better than EF/Rafale.

The reason why the JSF is such a strong contender is because of the logistical and doctrinal concerns in such operations.

The Rafale/EF can provide the capability on the two latter models, but loses out on cost/benefit - i.e. are too expensive for the requested requirement and because it was difficult to provide offsets, being ad hoc or pure mil consortia, having no complementary commercial base as basis and the jets already being developed an in production. DK would be the end user of a finished product, which would be expensive in relation to the limited mission set.

They may have said when they withdrew, that the show was rigged for the JSF, but one should take into account that they never realistically had a role for those above reasons anyway. So it was a free exit remark. :D
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Another thing which makes me wonder is why the SH would be chosen as an F-35 alternative? I would think that Denmark being an F-16 operator would be more apt to a late-model F-16 Block 60. While this is a different and more modern variant of the current F-16 operated, is broadly similar in terms of operations, maintenance, etc. The SH OTOH is an entirely different aircraft which everyone involved in operating it would need to be skilled up.
But did the F-16 even enter into the Danish competition?

I believe LM only offered the F-35...
 

B3LA

Banned Member
Unfortunately, these decisions are rarely logical...I always found it very hard to
understand logically why Denmark wanted to exchange a nimble little fighter
with a heavy stealth strikefighter...

There was another Danish newsflash the other day where a Danish politician
said that he would like to see a Danish presence over Greenland to secure
future oil and mineral resources.

A twin engine fighter would be best suited over the ice, and as the Canadians
seems to have good experiences with their fighters up north...

I guess we should interpret that as a very timely hint to the SH as well...
 
Last edited:

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
The higher numbers are just the same numbers as before, just reported in "Then Year"
dollars (with inflation added).
 

Palnatoke

Banned Member
In the case of Denmark.

My best guess is that DK is going to keep her f16s for as long as possible. At that future point in time, I quess that we will have to see, maybe some "used" JSFs?

I have a very hard time believing that DK is going to buy SHs. None of our usual coorporation partners fly that aircraft and it must be very costly for denmark to have to maintain a SH surport structure, more or less alone. I also think that politically it will be hard to explain the danish electroate that we will use a lot of money on a aircraft of an elder design, now when the airforce/politicians have talked so much of the importance of the long time perspective of the platform.


As I see it, what DK needs is an aircraft that can maintain her cababilities in airwarefare, so that DK in the future has the option to expand the airforce should a sercurity need arise. There is no hurry, no stop cap measures needed, we, imho, given the security situation, just need an intrim solution that can keep flying.
 

Bluesaphirro

New Member
It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:

Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35

Here's a quote: "At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)

Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."

As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10"

Is the F35 destined to be an all-time mega-expensive failure? Should partner countries start looking at other options? Your thoughtful comments, please.
The JSF F35 is not that doomed, in fact Lockheed Martin Is earning a lot of money from these partner and sponsored countries who throw in their (doe) Or money to expect a lot for the F35 to be their first and primary STEALTH STRIKE FIGHTER BOMBER JET! which is they can have the edge in technology terms against probable aggressive nations who only operate 3rd and 4th generation Multi-Role Fighter bomber jets!.. To think of it, it is all simply in the "Advantage" point these countries who threw in their BILLIONS of cash Dollars want the best and the finest Strike Fighter bomber in their Air Force to mention it is a Stealth Jet. Stealth is everything these countries want to have and it is an advantage.. A show of intimidation..
 

Tony Soprano

Banned Member
The JSF F35 is not that doomed, in fact Lockheed Martin Is earning a lot of money from these partner and sponsored countries who throw in their (doe) Or money to expect a lot for the F35 to be their first and primary STEALTH STRIKE FIGHTER BOMBER JET! which is they can have the edge in technology terms against probable aggressive nations who only operate 3rd and 4th generation Multi-Role Fighter bomber jets!.. To think of it, it is all simply in the "Advantage" point these countries who threw in their BILLIONS of cash Dollars want the best and the finest Strike Fighter bomber in their Air Force to mention it is a Stealth Jet. Stealth is everything these countries want to have and it is an advantage.. A show of intimidation..
The F-35 aint doomed, the JSF project is simply to big to fail, meaning they now got to trow money Lockheed Martins way everytime some sort of new issue has been found.

If the F-35 give them any edge over 3rd and 4th generation fighters compared to alternative 4.5 gen fighters is not exactly given. For contries with no clear enemies the extra cost compared to cheaper alternatives, does not make economicle sense at all.

The F-35 will perhaps in the future become some sort of godlike wonderplane, but it will find it hard to fill it's position as an airplane for the masses....
 

Tony Soprano

Banned Member
In the case of Denmark.

My best guess is that DK is going to keep her f16s for as long as possible. At that future point in time, I quess that we will have to see, maybe some "used" JSFs?

I have a very hard time believing that DK is going to buy SHs. None of our usual coorporation partners fly that aircraft and it must be very costly for denmark to have to maintain a SH surport structure, more or less alone. I also think that politically it will be hard to explain the danish electroate that we will use a lot of money on a aircraft of an elder design, now when the airforce/politicians have talked so much of the importance of the long time perspective of the platform.


As I see it, what DK needs is an aircraft that can maintain her cababilities in airwarefare, so that DK in the future has the option to expand the airforce should a sercurity need arise. There is no hurry, no stop cap measures needed, we, imho, given the security situation, just need an intrim solution that can keep flying.
If possible, wait to see how things evolve can be the best solution for ountries like denmark, the netherlands and norway. Is there any possibility to lease F-16?
 

Bluesaphirro

New Member
The F-35 aint doomed, the JSF project is simply to big to fail, meaning they now got to trow money Lockheed Martins way everytime some sort of new issue has been found.

If the F-35 give them any edge over 3rd and 4th generation fighters compared to alternative 4.5 gen fighters is not exactly given. For contries with no clear enemies the extra cost compared to cheaper alternatives, does not make economicle sense at all.

The F-35 will perhaps in the future become some sort of godlike wonderplane, but it will find it hard to fill it's position as an airplane for the masses....
True, but then again it is a BIG investment for countries like Australia, Canada, America, Britain, Singapore, Israel, Netherland, Norway, Italy, and Denmark that had poured a lot of their people's tax payers money into the American starting production JSF Program am quite sure they are expecting a lot for the JSF to fulfill their respective Air Forces requirement and protect their nation from any possible threat that might or may not accure.. I think it is a good investment for these countries for them anyway.. But for other countries who are not involve in the JSF program well they can evaluate other Multi-Role Fighter Jets that can and may fulfill their nation's defense need right?.. :cool:
 

djpav

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #359
Ah, interesting. Who has released the new estimates and where can they be found?
These numbers come from the latest GAO report (March 19) found here.

Here's the quick summary (see table on page 9):

Original baseline March 2007 Cost: $196.6 billion for 2,852 aircraft >Average procurement unit cost: $69 million

Year 2011 budget request: $273.3 billion for 2,443 aircraft > Average procurement unit cost: $112 million

Finally, the GAO estimates (see "Highlights on first page of report) that the current estimated investment will be $323 billion to develop and procure 2,457 aircraft > 131 million per unit cost
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Not quite right. Original baseline was 2001 - 2852 aircraft at $69 mn each. 2007 was 2443 aircraft at average procurement cost of $95 mn.
 
Top