Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post21 Aug 2015, 16:48

SpudmanWP wrote:So three "retired" pilots, who by that fact have no access to F-35 info & clearly are getting their info wrong are thereby making determinations based on public info......

Gee, I bet if I look hard enough I can get retired tankers who think the M60A3 was better than the M1.

:doh:


It's Maus. :roll:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6482
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Aug 2015, 19:07

Yawn
Choose Crews
Offline

borg

Banned

  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:11

Unread post21 Aug 2015, 21:39

Lol.
You guys just can't stand any critics towards Fat birdy, can you..

Anyway, Norway looks rock solid. Atleast for the first 16 F-35A.

Additional funding for new combat aircraft and associated base infrastructure

The Government proposes NOK 1.038 billion in supplementary funding in 2015 to support the continued procurement of the F-35, along with associated base infrastructure. This funding will be provided above and beyond the regular budget allocations in accordance with the schedule outlined in the current Norwegian Armed Forces Long Term Plan. The Norwegian Parliament has already authorized a total of 16 F-35 fighter aircraft that will be delivered between 2015 and 2018. The Government now requests additional authorizations valued at a total of NOK 6.9 billion for another six aircraft for delivery in 2019, along with related investments. Of this, NOK 4 billion covers the acquisition of six aircraft, with all Norwegian-specific costs included, while the remaining NOK 2.9 billion covers additional investments in deployable spare parts, ALIS and the Norwegian share of the Norwegian-Italian Reprogramming Lab for the F-35.



https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/P ... id2005697/

Have to say, those figures are interesting read..
Last edited by borg on 21 Aug 2015, 21:43, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24912
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Aug 2015, 21:42

LOL 'borg' - you cannot make a joke to save yourself. Anyhoo this is the F-35 bidness from the 'borg' URL:
Government Proposes 3.4% Defence Budget Increase in 2015
13 Oct 2014 Norwegian Government PR

"...Additional funding for new combat aircraft and associated base infrastructure
The Government proposes NOK 1.038 billion in supplementary funding in 2015 to support the continued procurement of the F-35, along with associated base infrastructure. This funding will be provided above and beyond the regular budget allocations in accordance with the schedule outlined in the current Norwegian Armed Forces Long Term Plan. The Norwegian Parliament has already authorized a total of 16 F-35 fighter aircraft that will be delivered between 2015 and 2018. The Government now requests additional authorizations valued at a total of NOK 6.9 billion for another six aircraft for delivery in 2019, along with related investments. Of this, NOK 4 billion covers the acquisition of six aircraft, with all Norwegian-specific costs included, while the remaining NOK 2.9 billion covers additional investments in deployable spare parts, ALIS and the Norwegian share of the Norwegian-Italian Reprogramming Lab for the F-35.

Ensures the continued development of the Joint Strike Missile (JSM)
Of the weapons currently in development for the F-35, the JSM is the one that is best able to meet the requirement for a long-range anti-surface capability against heavily defended sea and land targets. Together with a number of support systems and weapons, this will ensure that Norway, through the F-35, for the first time will have a real ability to both find and defeat well-defended targets at very long distances. In 2015, the Government therefore proposes NOK 308 million in supplementary funding within the defence budget to ensure the continued development and integration of the JSM on the F-35...."

Source: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/P ... id2005697/
Last edited by spazsinbad on 21 Aug 2015, 21:47, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

borg

Banned

  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:11

Unread post21 Aug 2015, 21:44

sure i can, and i just did.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24912
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Aug 2015, 21:48

I regularly report 'borg' as a troll but sadly that carries no weight here.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

borg

Banned

  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:11

Unread post21 Aug 2015, 22:06

wow.. regulary?

Well i report several posters, but not "regulary".

And on the troll issue..
I just find it both funny and sad the way you guys carry yourself here.
When Maus drops by and post a snippet from what goes in the Dannish media, you imidiently goes into the
self defence(destruct) mode and blame Maus here.

You guys must be proud of Yourself..

And be very carefull what you say about ex-Viper pilots here.
Show some respect. I'm sure they know lots of stuff about F-35. Who are you to say otherwise?
Last edited by borg on 21 Aug 2015, 22:33, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6482
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Aug 2015, 22:30

borg wrote:Lol.
You guys just can't stand any critics towards Fat birdy, can you..


Yeah everyone really flew off the handle there.
Choose Crews
Offline

borg

Banned

  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:11

Unread post21 Aug 2015, 22:35

Yeah whatever.

Back to the Maus story.
It was stated that F-35 was too expensive for them.

Well just remember that Denmark do not have this:

http://www.nbim.no/en/

So who can blame them.
Offline

pron

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post21 Aug 2015, 22:39

borg wrote:wow.. regulary?
And be very carefull what you say about ex-Viper pilots here.
Show some respect. I'm sure they know lots of stuff about F-35. Who are you to say otherwise?


Well, they make a point out of the following. F-35 have not been in combat, and no dane have been flying the F-35.
Have they really forgotten how the F-16 was purchased?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6482
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Aug 2015, 22:40

borg wrote:wow.. regulary?

Well i report several posters, but not "regulary".

And on the troll issue..
I just find it both funny and sad they way you guys carry yourself here.
When Maus drops by and post a snippet from what goes in the Dannish media, you imidiently goes into the
self defence(destruct) mode and blame Maus here.



Maus92 basically drops by to post bad news.




And be very carefull what you say about ex-Viper pilots here.
Show some respect. I'm sure they know lots of stuff about F-35. Who are you to say otherwise?



If we are going off what pilots say then this debate is pretty much over. The pilots who have flown F-35 and the people with access to the classified info have pretty much sealed it. A Dutch commodore said it was the best plane In history. Let's weigh that along with Chip Burke, and say LT. Col Gillette and call it a day vs these 3 former Viper guys.

If one side can ignore what F-35 pilots say, why do we care what a bunch of retired guys say? And if we do don't we concede that current F-35 pilots probably have a better handle on aircraft capability since every F-35 pilot comes from a previous type AND has first hand knowledge?

This is nothing new, F-4 people whined about the F-16, F-8 people whined about the F-4. And so it goes. This isn't new.

Image

hey look:

"By JAY A. STOUT
The Virginian-Pilot,
December 15, 1999

I am a fighter pilot. I love fighter aircraft. But even though my service --I am a Marine-- doesn't have a dog in the fight, it is difficult to watch the grotesquerie that is the procurement of the Navy's new strike-fighter, the F/A-18 E/F Su per Hornet.

Billed as the Navy's strike-fighter of the future, the F/A-18 E/F is instead an expensive failure - a travesty of subterfuge and poor leadership. Intended to over come any potential adversaries during the next 20 years, the air craft is instead outperformed by a number of already operational air craft - including the fighter it is scheduled to replace, the original F/A-18 Hornet.

The Super Hornet concept was spawned in 1992, in part, as a re placement for the 30 year-old A-6 Intruder medium bomber. Though it had provided yeoman service since the early 1960s, the A-6 was aging and on its way to retirement by the end of the Gulf War in 1991. The Navy earlier tried to develop a replacement during the 1980s - the A-12 - but bungled the project so badly that the whole mess was scrapped in 1991. The A-12 fiasco cost the taxpayers $5 billion and cost the Navy what little reputation it had as a service that could wisely spend taxpayer dollars.

Nevertheless, the requirement for an A-6 replacement remains. Without an aircraft with a longer range and greater payload than the current F/A-18, the Navy lost much of its offensive punch. Consequently it turned to the original F/A-18 - a combat-proven per former, but a short-ranged light bomber when compared to the A-6. Still stinging from the A-12 debacle, the Navy tried to "put one over" on Congress by passing off a completely redesigned aircraft - the Super Hornet - as simply a modification of the original Hornet.

The obfuscation worked. Many in Congress were fooled into believing that the new aircraft was just what the Navy told them it was - a modified Hornet. In fact, the new airplane is much larger - built that way to carry more fuel and bombs - is much different aerodynamically, has new engines and engine intakes and a completely reworked internal structure. In short, the Super Hornet and the original Hornet are two completely different aircraft despite their similar appearance.

Though the deception worked, the new aircraft - the Super Hornet - does not. Because it was never prototyped - at the Navy's insistence - its faults were not evident until production aircraft rolled out of the factory. Among the problems the aircraft experienced was the publicized phenomenon of "wing drop" - a spurious, uncommanded roll, which occurred in the heart of the air craft's performance envelope. After a great deal of negative press, the Super Hornet team devised a "band-aid" fix that mitigated the problem at the expense of performance tradeoffs in other regimes of flight. Regardless, the redesigned wing is a mish-mash of aerodynamic compromises which does nothing well. And the Super Hornet's wing drop problem is minor compared to other shortfalls. First, the air craft is slow -- slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s. In that one of the most oft- uttered maxims of the fighter pilot fraternity is that "Speed is Life", this deficiency is alarming.

But the Super Hornet's wheezing performance against the speed clock isn't its only flaw. If speed is indeed life, than maneuverability is the reason that life is worth living for the fighter pilot. In a dog fight, superior maneuverability al lows a pilot to bring his weapons to bear against the enemy. With its heavy, aerodynamically compromised airframe, and inadequate engines, the Super Hornet won't win many dogfights. Indeed, it can be outmaneuvered by nearly every front-line fighter fielded today.

"But the Super Hornet isn't just a fighter", its proponents will counter, "it is a bomber as well". True, the new aircraft carries more bombs than the current F/A-18 - but not dramatically more, or dramatically further. The engineering can be studied, but the laws of physics don't change for anyone - certainly not the Navy. From the beginning, the aircraft was incapable of doing what the Navy wanted. And they knew it.

The Navy doesn't appear to be worried about the performance shortfalls of the Super Hornet. The aircraft is supposed to be so full of technological wizardry that the enemy will be overwhelmed by its superior weapons. That is the same argument that was used prior to the Vietnam War. This logic fell flat when our large, ex pensive fighters - the most sophisticated in the world - started falling to peasants flying simple aircraft designed during the Korean conflict.

Further drawing into question the Navy's position that flight performance is secondary to the technological sophistication of the air craft, are the Air Forces' specifications for its new - albeit expensive - fighter, the F-22. The Air Force has ensured that the F-22 has top-notch flight performance, as well as a weapons suite second to none. It truly has no ri vals in the foreseeable future.

The Super Hornet's shortcomings have been borne out anecdotally. There are numerous stories, but one episode sums it up nicely. Said one crew member who flew a standard Hornet alongside new Super Hornets: "We outran them, we out-flew them, and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for those pilots". These shortcomings are tacitly acknowledged around the fleet where the aircraft is referred to as the "Super-Slow Hornet".

What about the rank-and-file Navy fliers? What are they told when they question the Super Hornet's shortcomings? The standard reply is, "Climb aboard, sit down, and shut up. This is our fighter, and you're going to make it work". Can there be any wondering at the widespread disgust with the Navy's leadership and the hemorrhaging exodus of its fliers?

Unfortunately, much of the damage has been done. Billions of dollars have been spent on the Super Hornet that could have been spent on maintaining or upgrading the Navy's current fleet of aircraft. Instead, unacceptable numbers or aircraft are sidelined for want of money to buy spare parts. Paradoxically, much of what the Navy wanted in the Super Hornet could have been obtained, at a fraction of the cost, by upgrading the cur rent aircraft - what the Navy said it was going to do at the beginning of this mess.

Our military's aircraft acquisition program cannot afford all the proposed acquisitions. Some hard decisions will have to be made. The Super Hornet decision, at a savings of billions of dollars, should be an easy one".


I remember when the Super Hornet was terrible and unproven.
Choose Crews
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post21 Aug 2015, 23:10

XanderCrews wrote:I remember when the Super Hornet was terrible and unproven.


Another one from the good old days"

Assessment
• SCS H8E demonstrated incremental improvements in capability in Phase I. APG-79 reliability improved during both Phases I and II testing compared to previous operational tests and provides improved performance compared to the legacy APG-73 radar employed on earlier F/A-18 aircraft. Nonetheless, key deficiencies in operational performance remain to be addressed.
• While the AESA radar demonstrated improved reliability, radar software instability resulted in failure to meet reliability and BIT performance requirements.
• The Navy has begun to address long-standing deficiencies in air warfare during H8E. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet weapons system is operationally effective and suitable for some threat environments. However, as noted in previous DOT&E classified reports, there are current, more stressing threat environments in which the F/A-18 remains not operationally effective.
• SCS H8E testing did not include an end-to-end multi-AIM-120 missile shot. This Navy operational capability has not been demonstrated previously in a successful test. The Navy tentatively plans to conduct a multi-missile shot as part of SCS H12 testing.

Recommendations
• Status of Previous Recommendations. The Navy has made progress on addressing FYxx recommendations to continue to improve the reliability and BIT functionality of the APG-79 radar, but that recommendation remains valid. Additionally, recommendations to conduct an operationally representative end-to-end missile test to demonstrate APG-79 radar and system software support for a multiple AIM-120 missile engagement and to develop and characterize the full electronic warfare capability of the APG-79 radar remain unchanged.


Did I say good "old" days? My bad, it's from this year!
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... fa18ef.pdf
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post22 Aug 2015, 01:27

However, as noted in previous DOT&E classified reports, there are current, more stressing threat environments in which the F/A-18 remains not operationally effective.


That's the most damning word in that whole sentence, if one gives the Super Hornet DOT&E report the same weight the F-35 detractors give their F-35 report.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7723
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post22 Aug 2015, 01:35

Yeah, what is it with the APG-79? Good thing there will be excellent APG-81s up front to guide those truck-launched AMRAAMs :D .
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

borg

Banned

  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:11

Unread post22 Aug 2015, 10:23

That is strange News to me. After all these years and there are still serious bugs on the AGP-79..
Could it be a initial design flaws in the inherent architecture?

On the flip side, how many years will it take to iron all the bugs out of the AGP-81 then..


But seriously, there are reports from Russia, that the IRBIS-E is also ridden With bugs.
The Su-35S was given a Three year warranty from Manufactors after IOC, to work out the problems.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests