Forum: Program and politics

Scorpion82 wrote:

m wrote:

In both Dutch evaluations double engined jets had no change.
They were/are to expensive to consider them as a replacement for the F16.
Only the F16 advanced, F35 and Gripen and the later on Gripen Ng
were serious contenders.

That makes you wonder why the different twin-engined jets has been considered at all? I think that Eurofighter and Dassault didn't participate in the 2008 competition was very much owed to the fact that they knew that the Dutch wouldn't change their mind at all, thus it was a wise decision not to waste money and time on a lost case.

For the rest I thank you for sharing your thoughts and gathered information and for the way you communicate.

The second evaluation, doubled engined was also asked for by M of P.
Although too expensive, a political decision always can be made and still
a doubled engined jet could have had may be a change.
From that point of view, may be reason for Dassault?

Also economical reasons can have that much influence such a decision
is more important than the cost of a jet.
It seems for instance Brazil favored the Gripen Ng or Rafale mainly to
develop their own flying industry (?)

Although not asked for, the Typhoon is offered now to Denmark.

F-16.net Sponsor

m wrote:

What is the difference? UK started development, with partners, Typhoon as a replacement.
Others rule out more or less existing fighters and follow a same path, as level partners, developing a jet.

The main difference is that the French or Eurofighter partners didn't launch a competition after committing to the development programmes albeit they had made up their minds already.

I'm not blaming the Americans or F-35 here, more the way how some JSF partners launched "open" competitions after having committed to the JSF already and some European companies went into the trap. For the respective countries itself it was possibly a good move to pressure the Americans for a better deal.

Wrt Denmark Eurofighter has signalled a willingness to possibly rejoin the competition. Eurofighter left the Danish competition in December 2007 and announced this withdrawal together with that from Norway.

Dassault is probably just more careful these days following the experience in South Korea.

jeffb wrote:

Short memories around here…

Quote:

Leaked US diplomatic cables reveal a concerted, multi-departmental American lobbying effort in 2008 to convince Norwegian policymakers to purchase F-35 fighter jets instead of a Swedish-made rival for fear rejecting the stealth aircraft could influence other countries.

The campaign was designed to talk up the F-35's capabilities in public while applying "forceful" pressure on Norwegian officials in private. At the same time, there was an apparent effort to influence the Norwegian decision by withholding a key component for the Swedish aircraft.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/12/wikileaks-shows-us-played-aesa.html
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/diplomats-pimping-planes-dirty-little-wikil
http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2010/12/wikileaks-cables-how-us-forced-norway.html

Completely above-board, no funny business going on here.

But don’t worry guys, you’re not as biased as that Sweetman bloke. You’re waaay more biased than that guy. Laughing

Even shorter memory on your behalf Jeffb. One really has to laugh, almost in disbelief of the nerve of the people accusing the U.S of untimely pressure on its potential buyers. This sort of thing is the order of the day, and no one should be surprised that a bit of tactical play occurs. That said I have to ask "all the finger pointers" - what about the corruption that has riddled both the Typhoon and Gripen projects? You believe this is better?

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resource/documents-reveal-blair-urged-end-bae-saudi-corruption-investigation
http://techappsgroup.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/the-gripen-corruption-saga-continues-in-hungary-words-of-caution-for-defense-exporters/

Scorpion82 wrote:

m wrote:

What is the difference? UK started development, with partners, Typhoon as a replacement.
Others rule out more or less existing fighters and follow a same path, as level partners, developing a jet.

The main difference is that the French or Eurofighter partners didn't launch a competition after committing to the development programmes albeit they had made up their minds already.

I'm not blaming the Americans or F-35 here, more the way how some JSF partners launched "open" competitions after having committed to the JSF already and some European companies went into the trap. For the respective countries itself it was possibly a good move to pressure the Americans for a better deal.

Wrt Denmark Eurofighter has signalled a willingness to possibly rejoin the competition. Eurofighter left the Danish competition in December 2007 and announced this withdrawal together with that from Norway.

Dassault is probably just more careful these days following the experience in South Korea.

Absolutely right, it makes no sense opening a new competition by mainly
European partners.
When the F35 project joined, as well as joining the production phase,
they knew they can not suddenly pull out.
Also political they must have in mind, this will not be that easy; level partners
will have to share the burden when one gets out.
It will not taken for granted by level partners.

Got the impression, these competitions are, more or less, mentioned for the political
debates internally, just formal, but have no real meaning for the outcome.
As for example the Netherlands, when the decision had to be made, ordering the second
F35 IOT&E, a main party against the F35, voted for the acquisition.

Suppose the argument about “competition and pressure” makes sense.

In Canada, with a new government, it seems the F35 has got a future.
The debate either is very difficult to observe.

The historic factor dates to the mid-1980s, when France and the Eurofighter partners went their separate ways. Germany and the U.K. argued that one-nation programs no longer had the critical mass to compete with those from the U.S. France believed multinational programs without a clear leadership structure were impossibly cumbersome.

Both arguments were right.

Rafale works, but is being built at such slow rates that costs are high. To increase rates would be to starve other national programs of resources. Typhoon’s production and upgrade program has been successively delayed and restructured as the sponsoring nations have wrangled over how much should be spent on each step, and when.

Does this sound like raging pro-Europe bias? Or have the kiddywinks' reading skills deserted them?

By the way, "competition" in acquisition terms usually implies a rules-based process in which would-be suppliers are invited to submit offers based on capability and cost.

The JSF has not participated in any such process (except for the initial SDD downselect, which LockMart won by lying) and indeed cannot do so until its costs are determined, which the Pentagon's senior leaders say cannot be done yet.

That's why Canada ducked the deal by writing an SOR that fit the F-35 like a $29 billion Savile Row suit, and why Norway faked a competition that was decided by stacking up ludicrous JSF estimates against Norway's own inflation of Gripen's guaranteed offer.

So you can blather on about the cost and capability of Rafale and Typhoon until hell freezes over, but the capability of your favorite jet remains undemonstrated (software, software, software) and its cost is whatever it turns out to be.

And RAND is headquartered where and predominantly works for whom?

aceshigh wrote:

jeffb wrote:

Short memories around here…

Quote:

Leaked US diplomatic cables reveal a concerted, multi-departmental American lobbying effort in 2008 to convince Norwegian policymakers to purchase F-35 fighter jets instead of a Swedish-made rival for fear rejecting the stealth aircraft could influence other countries.

The campaign was designed to talk up the F-35's capabilities in public while applying "forceful" pressure on Norwegian officials in private. At the same time, there was an apparent effort to influence the Norwegian decision by withholding a key component for the Swedish aircraft.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/12/wikileaks-shows-us-played-aesa.html
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/diplomats-pimping-planes-dirty-little-wikil
http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2010/12/wikileaks-cables-how-us-forced-norway.html

Completely above-board, no funny business going on here.

But don’t worry guys, you’re not as biased as that Sweetman bloke. You’re waaay more biased than that guy. Laughing

Even shorter memory on your behalf Jeffb. One really has to laugh, almost in disbelief of the nerve of the people accusing the U.S of untimely pressure on its potential buyers. This sort of thing is the order of the day, and no one should be surprised that a bit of tactical play occurs. That said I have to ask "all the finger pointers" - what about the corruption that has riddled both the Typhoon and Gripen projects? You believe this is better?

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resource/documents-reveal-blair-urged-end-bae-saudi-corruption-investigation
http://techappsgroup.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/the-gripen-corruption-saga-continues-in-hungary-words-of-caution-for-defense-exporters/

No, you miss my point. Someone stated that the F-35 won the Norwegian comp fair and square. That wasn't true for Norway and frankly it can't be true anywhere because the aircraft is still a work in progress.

"Say Bob, what's the current configuration of the F-35"?
"Dunno, what time is it?"
Laughing

Once it makes it to IOC or at least a final configuration, then you can say, the capabilities of the F-35 are much greater than those of this other aircraft. Up till then it's just some guy from marketing telling you, "Nah, nah trust me mate, would I lie to you?"

jeffb wrote:

No, you miss my point. Someone stated that the F-35 won the Norwegian comp fair and square. That wasn't true for Norway and frankly it can't be true anywhere because the aircraft is still a work in progress.

And the same is true for the Gripen NG (even more so than the F-35 infact) and ofcourse the Typhoon and Rafale are also both firmly sat in the work in progress camp (they have been since they entered service, Typhoon especially).

Yep, In that case trance 3 Typhoon could not compared/evaluated either as a multi role

m wrote:

Yep, In that case trance 3 Typhoon could not compared/evaluated either as a multi role

Exactly

Something about people in glass houses comes to mind when I hear people like Sheep blagging on about Typhoon's upgrade program being late and costing too much.

They seem to forget that there is a 5thGenerationTM fighter out there, its prime contractor being headquartered not a million miles from Bethesda, that has been soaking up billions a year in upgrade development costs since the mid-2000s - and this year starts tests of only its second air-to-ground weapon, and doesn't get AIM-9X and AIM-120D until at least 2016, three years behind the 2008 schedule.

Of course, the F-35 will be different because of all the modeling and simulation (excuse me while I larf till I puke).

PS Another point on all the pro-JSF selection decisions: How many were made after the 2010 changes to the cost estimates?

underhill wrote:

Something about people in glass houses comes to mind when I hear people like Sheep blagging on about Typhoon's upgrade program being late and costing too much.

Suppose you are missing the point concerning the Typhoon?
It does not concern the quality of the fighter, upgrade, being late etc.
(My interpretation)

It’s about, quote: Someone stated that the F-35 won the Norwegian comp fair and square.
That wasn't true for Norway and frankly it can't be true anywhere because the aircraft
is still a work in progress.

In that case, this considers the Typhoon as well.
As trance 3, in development/work in progress, as a multirole

Last edited by norseman on Jun 06, 2011 - 04:46 AM; edited 5 times in total

Long time reader, first time poster.

I don't know very much about fighters or airplanes compered to many others here, but i'd just like to say something as a Norwegian with an interest for flying stuff.

The Norwegian decision to make F35 our future aircraft was a long process.
There was 27 different groups / companies / Ministries involved in the process in finding the best plane, none of the groups had contact with each other , including Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Finance. Every single of the 27 reports pointed out that the F35 was a much better choice then Gripen NG, some even said that it wasn't a real competition. The air force and pilots themselves favored the F35.

I'm sure the US lobbied for the F35, just like the Swedes did don't see why that's such a big deal ( http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... mp;act=url if the link doesnt work, just translate it with google translate, Norwegian -> English http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2007/08/30/510481.html)

Of the two planes, i think F35 is a better choice for us, specially after an interview i heard with one of our current Air Force pilots , and i have more faith in them then in any others in this process, specially people who have an economic or political agenda.

Welcome to the forum norseman.. good post.

Welcome Norseman, indeed good post.

Try following the process in Norway (as far as I can read a bit of Norwegian)
As you posted the process in Norway, it seems not that much different as in the Neth.

The same as you wrote, concerning pilots; "faith in them then in any others in this process"

norseman wrote:

I'm sure the US lobbied for the F35, just like the Swedes did don't see why that's such a big deal

America won, that's what the big deal is, afterall we all know how much non-Americans hate to see America succeed at anything.

Forum: Program and politics

Euros don't like the F-35 but like themselves