Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2005, 01:43
by hatchet
Apparently, we've requested information about the JAS-39, that Gripen International have happily given. Article on Gripen.com

:cheers:
Martin

RE: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2005, 10:34
by boff180
They also requested an RFI from Eurofighter last month :)

And Norway are making a decision in the next 12 months of F-35 or Typhoon... which may be Typhoon as they already have a substantial workshare on it without committing to orders.

Also, the US may have shot themselves in the foot over exporting the F-35... this article appeared in the Sunday Times today:
Britain in battle with US over fighter plane
Peter Almond and Dominic O'Connell

BRITAIN is threatening to pull out of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a co-operative combat-aircraft project with America that is one of the largest military programmes in the world.

The move, confirmed to The Sunday Times by senior defence officials, could have serious repercussions for BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, Britain’s two main contributors to the project.

BAE is part of the consortium developing the plane, and had expected revenues of about $24 billion (£13.8 billion) in development and production contracts.

Rolls-Royce is developing the lift fan for the vertical take-off version, and is working with its American rival, General Electric, on an alternative engine for the aircraft.

The JSF is a versatile plane aimed at replacing several types of aircraft currently in use, and could achieve total sales of more than $300 billion, according to some forecasts.

While the development is being driven by the Pentagon, it is being built by a multinational team in which Britain is the sole “Tier One� partner. The government has already provided $2 billion in development funding, and had been slated to buy 150 aircraft for the RAF and Royal Navy.

But Britain is now threatening to withdraw after rows over the Pentagon’s reluctance to agree to the transfer of technology, and because of likely increases in the price of each plane.

According to senior Ministry of Defence officials, instructions have been given for alternative strategies for projects affected by American technology- transfer problems, the most important of which is the JSF.

Dropping the JSF would stun the defence industry, but a senior official told The Sunday Times it was time to “think the unthinkable�. “I know how the Americans negotiate,� said the official. “They will not do a deal unless they know the other side has a serious alternative. It’s like a high-stakes poker game . . . it’s essential to have a Plan B because it’s very important not to travel in hope.�

The JSF was to have equipped the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers. The “Plan B� being worked on is a version of the Eurofighter Typhoon adapted for the navy. The Typhoon recently entered service with the RAF after long delays and cost overruns.

Defence-industry sources say negotiations on the “Tranche 3� Eurofighter contract, under which Britain will take the last 88 of the 232 orders, now encompassed the issues needed to be addressed to make the aircraft fly from a carrier.

Sources close to the Eurofighter programme say there are no major obstacles to the operation, although some elements of the carrier design would have to be changed.

BAE Systems is likely to stand behind the government’s tough line on the negotiations with the Americans. The company is eager to secure more defence technology to allow it to play a full role in the JSF programme if it continues.

But Rolls-Royce could be an early casualty. Defence-industry sources in Washington said last week that the US budget row could threaten funding for the F-136 engine that it is developing in conjunction with General Electric.


Andy

RE: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2005, 11:05
by locum
At friday 18 november 05, Norwagian deputy secretary of Defense Espen Bath Eide told the press, that the government is reconsidering the participation in the JSF program.
In June'05, the Norwegians already cutback their annual contribution to the JSF by 50% and increased their investment in the further development of the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Bath Eide said that the decision for a new tactical fighter in 2008, will based on financial-economical reasons rather than foreign-political reasons.

US Deputy secretary of Defense Gordon England stated recently to his Dutch collegue Cees van der Knaap, that the Pentagon is reconsidering the JSF project.
Van der Knaap was told that the JSF program will be cut partially or totally, the final decision will be taken at the end of February 2006 by the Pentagon.

C. van der Knaap told the Dutch press, that their purchase of a new fighter will be done in 2 batches and the total number of planes will go down from 80/85 to approx 66.

RE: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2005, 11:19
by Boman
The only one who will benefit from either choices are BAE as they hold stakes in all 3; Gripen, Typhoon and the F-35.

RE: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2005, 06:04
by Velvet
Martin, the Gripen is a very affordable and effective fighter for the money. No shame in some JAS-39C's on the ramp!

Andy, I think the UK is posturing (not that I wouldn't, too). They want full transfer of technology and control (therefor competition for LM) on their F-35's and the US is balking in making BAE any more competitive with US companies than it already is. The Typhoon is a great jet but anytime you decide to make a CV variant of a land based design it:
1) Never goes well (look at the T-45 Goshawk)
2) Never is cheap
3) Never happens quickly
A Naval Typhoon would arrive many years after a F-35C and be much more expensive (No shared R&D costs, 2 motors vice one). It sure won't be faster or cheaper for the UK, but if the US refuses to totally share (which might not be in their best interest) it might be in the UK's best interest to pay the extra to go it alone.

RE: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2005, 10:56
by Safetystick
Damn, BAE is practically an American company anyway ;)

Seeming as there is now a British JSF thread I'll reply to the subject there, but I can't disagree with Velvet (though I never realised there were issues with the Goshawk - not that I ever looked TBH)

RE: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2005, 04:12
by Ducatist
For the money the Gripen is an awesome jet. From what I hear, its very reliable. So we cant blame the guys from Denmark. A few other countries are also thinking of dropping the F35.

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2005, 04:57
by TenguNoHi
The problem with the F-35 is it meets the A-G capabilities required by the US military, and therefore, is easy to sell here, the original target audience. However, the A-A capability of the F-35 is not what other countries are expecting for a 5th generation fighter, and every country out there has learned that you need a good air dominance fighter to maintain air superiority in a warzone. This makes some of the aero-amazing designs of foreign competetors very appetizing. IMO had they just given the F-35 TV then it would be easy to convince people to buy it. A stealth fighter that can turn on a dime. But I think many foreign governments are reluctant that stealth allone can single handidly make something a good defense fighter.

-Aaron

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2005, 07:00
by bring_it_on1
But I think many foreign governments are reluctant that stealth allone can single handidly make something a good defense fighter.


So u think that it is LO that is the only thing going for the F-35?? What about the top Notch avionics suite giving it tremendous situational awareness and Integration of avionics coupled with a 4th generation Active Radar (while the competition is slowly working its way into developing a first generation active fighter radar)...All in all the F-35 is a neet little machine even for a2a ops..Low RCS combined with a relatrivly drag free (compared to ext storage) airframe (2 9x's) and top notch avionics and radars..HMD's are a great leveler .. If people tend to give the mig-21 a fair chance against a f-15 (re cope india) with HMS and HOBS then the JSF is definately gonna get an advantage from this!!!..Looking around at its competition I see no western aircraft other then the F/a-22 that currently uses thrust vectoring (harrier aside)..None of the eurocanards have it and they seem to be doing just fine..If u want a stealth fighter that is hands down point blank a2a sniper then u do need to spend that 119 million and get the f/a-22 however if u want a stealthy airframe coupled with top notch avionics and radar and want flexibility at a price which u can afford (Relativly) then u go in for the F-35..It gives nothing away in BVR (second only to the F/a-22) while can still hold its own in WVR thx to HMS and HOBS missile (the odds of comming out alive of a WVR are not as good as it is - too many variables)...Come 2015-2020 any country using such fighters as EF typhoon , rafale , F-35 , PAKFA will/should have atleast some sort of AEW or GBR system going in for it and should atleast hold plenty of BVR assets otherwise the entire objective of getting these fighters is pointless...The entire objective of these fifth generation fighters is to make it harder and harder for the other guy to take you into the WVR regime and deal with u there..I aint saying that WVR combat is gonna get less important however comparitive to say the flanker,Eurofighter,gripen,rafale and other legacy jets the only Place where the F-35A is found wanting (relativly found wanting) is in the last regime of the episodal/transition of a2a combat which is the WVR regime...Now it is easy to say that it lacks TVC and straight up pointability however u need to get it to WVR first and lets see wether those above mentioned assets can get it there consistently (Surviving BVR (Both ways) ) ROE's aside :D ...

JSF: Integrated Avionics Par Excellence

http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0903&file=0903jsf.htm


Anyway The J-UCAS would be equiped with a new Fluidic Thrust Vectoring Nozzel (yaw only) similar and comparable to those researched in the past but only fraction of their weight and much more long lasting...Given the ammount of Viper upgrades we've esen over the years i wouldnt be a bit surprised to see such a system adopted onto the F-35 in the future...

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2005, 22:40
by locum
In the above mentioned link to JSF: Integrated Avionics etc., they write about 'intuitive tactical picture on the cockpit display' and in the section "Wrapping Sensors Up" they write about 'tactical decision aids' 'planners'.
Is artificial intelligence/ expert system software applied in the F-35 and what about the F-22? In the second half of the eighties DARPA started research projects in which artificial intelligence was applied: Autonomous Land Vehicle; Battle Management System, an electronic tactician on board of aircraft carriers; and the Pilot's Associate, a 'virtual second crewmember'.
Because in those Internet Jets just 1 pilot will fly & fight in all-weather multi-role missions and he/she will deal with a flood of info.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2005, 21:45
by elp
TenguNoHi wrote:The problem with the F-35 is it meets the A-G capabilities required by the US military, and therefore, is easy to sell here, the original target audience. However, the A-A capability of the F-35 is not what other countries are expecting for a 5th generation fighter, and every country out there has learned that you need a good air dominance fighter to maintain air superiority in a warzone. This makes some of the aero-amazing designs of foreign competetors very appetizing. IMO had they just given the F-35 TV then it would be easy to convince people to buy it. A stealth fighter that can turn on a dime. But I think many foreign governments are reluctant that stealth allone can single handidly make something a good defense fighter.

-Aaron



Turning to the uber-nth degree is over-rated considering high end HOBS-helmet heater combos will be common. The nozzles are just yet one more thing that would be a maintenance task for not enough payback on the expense. Any turning ability a F-35 has.... or has not... will have to wait for real flight testing. Considering it would be doing A2A as a clean config vs a legacy jet that might or might not, have draggy stores, I don't see much of a problem. However the design indicates it will be the Buick of Stealth ( you did want a inexpensive jet did you not? ) :lol:

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2005, 16:34
by bring_it_on1
Buick of stealth...Thats a good one ELP..

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2013, 19:17
by lamoey
The Danish government have announced that they are restarting the process to select the next fighter aircraft after it was put on hold back in 2010. In short they are including four candidates, namely the FA-18E/F, F-35, JAS-39 and the EuroFighter

http://www.fmn.dk/nyheder/Pages/Valgetafnytkampflystarterigen.aspx In Danish

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 03:56
by popcorn
lamoey wrote:The Danish government have announced that they are restarting the process to select the next fighter aircraft after it was put on hold back in 2010. In short they are including four candidates, namely the FA-18E/F, F-35, JAS-39 and the EuroFighter

http://www.fmn.dk/nyheder/Pages/Valgetafnytkampflystarterigen.aspx In Danish


"Round up the usual suspects..." :)

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 04:20
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:
lamoey wrote:The Danish government have announced that they are restarting the process to select the next fighter aircraft after it was put on hold back in 2010. In short they are including four candidates, namely the FA-18E/F, F-35, JAS-39 and the EuroFighter

http://www.fmn.dk/nyheder/Pages/Valgetafnytkampflystarterigen.aspx In Danish


"Round up the usual suspects..." :)


:lol:

One things is for sure, if the F-35 wins it won't mean anything. However if it loses its a indictment against the entire JSF program, and another contribution to its inevitable cancellation

:lol:

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 05:02
by spazsinbad
In English:

Denmark Relaunches Fighter Jet Competition Mar. 14, 2013 By ANDREW CHUTER

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... ompetition

"...A decision on the winning contractor is set to take place by mid-2015.

Denmark originally sought to acquire 48 jets, but that number has been reduced to about 30...."

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 06:06
by popcorn
Why is the Rafale excluded?

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 07:59
by linkomart
Good question, what doe's the danes know that we don't...
:shrug:
The statement from forsvarsministeriet (Danish DoD) clearly says that there are four candidates, F-35, F/A-18, Gripen NG and F-35.

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 09:46
by gtx
XanderCrews wrote:
:lol:

One things is for sure, if the F-35 wins it won't mean anything. However if it loses its a indictment against the entire JSF program, and another contribution to its inevitable cancellation

:lol:


Ain't that the truth. :D

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 11:38
by popcorn
linkomart wrote:Good question, what doe's the danes know that we don't...
:shrug:
The statement from forsvarsministeriet (Danish DoD) clearly says that there are four candidates, F-35, F/A-18, Gripen NG and F-35.


I wonder if it has anything to do with France's invitation years back for Denmark and some other coutries to participate in the Rafale program? No reasons were given but talks failed and maybe there is a hangover lingering from those negotiations.

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 14:46
by bigjku
spazsinbad wrote:In English:

Denmark Relaunches Fighter Jet Competition Mar. 14, 2013 By ANDREW CHUTER

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... ompetition

"...A decision on the winning contractor is set to take place by mid-2015.

Denmark originally sought to acquire 48 jets, but that number has been reduced to about 30...."


To me this sounds like a good excuse to never really get around to buying any jets. A lot of nations like to hold repeated contest for fighters it seems.

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 15:55
by neurotech
bigjku wrote:To me this sounds like a good excuse to never really get around to buying any jets. A lot of nations like to hold repeated contest for fighters it seems.

I sometimes wonder that.

Maybe they should get a few JAS-39E/Fs, F/A-18F(Block II+), F-16 Block 70+ and F-35A. Everyone gets a 30 minute flight demo, 30 minute area flight evaluation route, and 15 minutes short-field landing demo. After which, the top two winners loans them 2-4 jets for training, and they return the one they don't want.

This worked for the F-14, sold after a 15 minute demo :)

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 15:56
by lamoey
Most European countries have struggling economies, so spending billions on defense is a hard sale to many voters. In Norway the situation is better, but even there an investment in 52 F-35's is not done without a fair share of opposition. However, the three largest parties, 70% to 80% of the voters in a resent study, seem to be in agreement on this, so even if there were an election today this is not likely to change. The smaller parties on the left side have historical and emotional issues when it comes to defense spending. Even today one of the parties that is in the 3 party coalition government with the much larger Labour party suggested cutting the planned F-35 purchase in half, but this is just to preach to its own voters as there is no chance this would become official Norwegian policy. The same party, 3.1% of the voters, also want Norway to leave NATO, which is equally unlikely.

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 21:05
by gtx
linkomart wrote:Good question, what doe's the danes know that we don't...
:shrug:
The statement from forsvarsministeriet (Danish DoD) clearly says that there are four candidates, F-35, F/A-18, Gripen NG and F-35.


I thought I saw a copy that said the four candidates were the American-made F-18 Super Hornet (Boeing) and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (Lockheed Martin), and the European produced JAS-39 Gripen Next Generation and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2013, 08:37
by lookieloo
So... when do we get the Canadian/Dutch/Danish workshares back stateside?

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2013, 08:55
by popcorn
gtx wrote:
linkomart wrote:Good question, what doe's the danes know that we don't...
:shrug:
The statement from forsvarsministeriet (Danish DoD) clearly says that there are four candidates, F-35, F/A-18, Gripen NG and F-35.


I thought I saw a copy that said the four candidates were the American-made F-18 Super Hornet (Boeing) and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (Lockheed Martin), and the European produced JAS-39 Gripen Next Generation and the Eurofighter Typhoon.


you're probably right.. giving 2 bidders' slots to the F-35 while assigning the third to a '70s vintage Hornet will raise a few eyebrows.. obviously a conspiracy between the Danes and LM. :D

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2013, 09:10
by gtx
lookieloo wrote:So... when do we get the Canadian/Dutch/Danish workshares back stateside?


Back off!!! :) I will take it to Australia please.

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2013, 09:44
by hb_pencil
popcorn wrote:Why is the Rafale excluded?


This is partly conjecture/ fact/ rumor; Dassault seems to be really cagey at marketing the Rafale vs the F-35. They did not compete in the Japanese or Korean competition. They weren't too welcoming to the Canadians' request for information during the initial stages of the NGFC.

lookieloo wrote:So... when do we get the Canadian/Dutch/Danish workshares back stateside?


You can have them when we chose something else. Not before, as specified in the MOU.

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2013, 10:06
by linkomart
gtx wrote:
linkomart wrote:Good question, what doe's the danes know that we don't...
:shrug:
The statement from forsvarsministeriet (Danish DoD) clearly says that there are four candidates, F-35, F/A-18, Gripen NG and F-35.


I thought I saw a copy that said the four candidates were the American-made F-18 Super Hornet (Boeing) and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (Lockheed Martin), and the European produced JAS-39 Gripen Next Generation and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

:oops: Correction Reading from my side would have been in order.... :oops:

Just one bid from L-M and add in the bid from Eurofighter....
I stand corrected

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2013, 11:49
by XanderCrews
hb_pencil wrote:
popcorn wrote:Why is the Rafale excluded?


This is partly conjecture/ fact/ rumor; Dassault seems to be really cagey at marketing the Rafale vs the F-35. They did not compete in the Japanese or Korean competition. They weren't too welcoming to the Canadians' request for information during the initial stages of the NGFC.

lookieloo wrote:So... when do we get the Canadian/Dutch/Danish workshares back stateside?


You can have them when we chose something else. Not before, as specified in the MOU.


When does the "now or never" point hit for F-35 partners that are supposed to be building the thing, but don't think they need to buy it anyway?

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2013, 18:57
by hb_pencil
XanderCrews wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
popcorn wrote:Why is the Rafale excluded?


This is partly conjecture/ fact/ rumor; Dassault seems to be really cagey at marketing the Rafale vs the F-35. They did not compete in the Japanese or Korean competition. They weren't too welcoming to the Canadians' request for information during the initial stages of the NGFC.

lookieloo wrote:So... when do we get the Canadian/Dutch/Danish workshares back stateside?


You can have them when we chose something else. Not before, as specified in the MOU.


When does the "now or never" point hit for F-35 partners that are supposed to be building the thing, but don't think they need to buy it anyway?


Legally? That's a bit of a grey area in the MOU. I suspect the spirit of the MOU suggests when RDT&E ends and the aircraft is accepted, as a number of mechanisms come into place in the program. Even then its not exactly clear as it hinges on one not that well worded paragraph in the MOU. In a way, you can buy just one F-35 and meet your MOU obligations, but no country would ever dare to do that.

In practice this is all moot. Industrial considerations are secondary to actual defence requirements; a country would decide to purchase long before this occurs based on their actual military considerations.

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2013, 20:05
by gtx
Mind you, I know that recently when Australia asked for pricing on more Super Hornets, LM got spooked and started telling direct suppliers to find other industry suppliers then those in Australia.

This was just because Australia simply asked for some pricing (nothing like the extent of what Canada has done). IMHO this was a very stupid thing for LM to do...and they were told so by both the Aust Govt and Industry and as a result have retracted their direction (some US suppliers to their credit also told LM to stop being ridiculous). It does however show how fast things can move on this front. If a partner nation did decide to pull out altogether I think you would find contracts start drying up very quickly for that country's industry.

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2013, 00:49
by maus92
Danish Fighter Restart Could Hurt F-35
ANDREW CHUTER | Defense News

"LONDON — Denmark fired the starting pistol on a new competition to replace its aging F-16 fighter jets last week, in a move that pitches European and U.S. companies against the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for the chance to snare one of the troubled program’s partner nations as a customer."

"“It’s yet another test of whether a small country wants to keep the code of coalition war-fighting and U.S. commonality, or whether it wants to simply look for having a modest airpower capability at a lower price,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president for analysis at the Virginia-based Teal Group think tank.

“The conundrum is being faced by a lot of countries. Unfortunately for Lockheed Martin, a lot of them are F-35 countries, Canada being the perfect example,” he said.

Countries such as Denmark and Canada “might just look more at bang for buck rather than keeping that code,” Aboulafia said."

"Aside from the other competitors, Dassault Aviation’s position with the Rafale fighter is unclear, but a spokesman for the French company said if the “conditions are such that there is an open competition for an alternative to the F-35, we will obviously be a candidate.”"

"“Everybody is having to justify their procurements, and a competition involving the F-35 will either provide ammunition to those who say it is too expensive or even those who say it may be more expensive than we want, but it remains the aircraft we require,” he said."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... CFRONTPAGE

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2013, 00:58
by SpudmanWP
Fingers crossed for an actual F-35 vs Eurofighter vs Rafale vs Superhornet flyoff.

We can finally put all the blustering to bed. :)

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2013, 01:03
by gtx
SpudmanWP wrote:Fingers crossed for an actual F-35 vs Eurofighter vs RAfale vs Superhornet flyoff.

We can finally put all the blustering to bed. :)


Nah, because even when the F-35 wins they will say that there were special issues...or that the competition was rigged...or that LM bribed their way...or...

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2013, 20:52
by neurotech
gtx wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Fingers crossed for an actual F-35 vs Eurofighter vs RAfale vs Superhornet flyoff.

We can finally put all the blustering to bed. :)


Nah, because even when the F-35 wins they will say that there were special issues...or that the competition was rigged...or that LM bribed their way...or...

None of these type fly offs are done 1v1, like Rhino vs F-35.

I realize its not always the case, but fly offs are usually just to verify performance for the customer (USAF, Indian AF etc.), and not a direct challenge for air superiority.

Lets assume the F-22 is off the table. The F-35 is the best jet out there for countries that can get past the sticker shock, followed by a F/A-18E/F. The Su-30 has some advantages in speed, range etc. but doesn't have the avionics suite that the Block II F/A-18 has, and the avionics systems are not fully integrated.

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2013, 21:10
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Fingers crossed for an actual F-35 vs Eurofighter vs RAfale vs Superhornet flyoff.

We can finally put all the blustering to bed. :)


Nah, because even when the F-35 wins they will say that there were special issues...or that the competition was rigged...or that LM bribed their way...or...


Agreed. governments signing on after the initial partners hasn't helped the F-35 in the court of public opinion.

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2013, 15:49
by linkomart
More from Flight Global:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ht-383554/

As noted earlier, Dassault have not been invited.

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2013, 15:52
by linkomart

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2013, 21:05
by spazsinbad
Bunch O'stuff here FITER NORDIC: http://www.fighternordic.com/MediaCenter.aspx Fighter Nordic 2013 is sponsored by Saab
__________________

Nordic Air Forces to Address Urgent Airpower Capability at Copenhagen Summit 03/20/2013 PR Newswire Europe

https://research.zecco.com/research/quo ... =undefined

"...Identifying the shared need for a capable multirole fleet, Denmark has since reopened the competition to supply its air force with thirty new fighters, notifying Boeing, Eurofighter and Saab to pitch proposals. Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter programme office will also be reaffirming their interest in this project.

Additionally, in recent weeks, both the Supreme Commander of the Swedish Armed Forces and an academic report announced that the current defence budget is leaving Sweden unable to effectively defend itself, forcing the government to reconsider its expenditure. One of the major shortfalls was found to be the number of fighters the country has to secure its airspace. Read more on this development here: http://www.fighternordic.com

The conference will also see representatives from Canada, the US, the UK and France, with discussion revolving around future multinational defence capabilities and investment...."

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2013, 21:56
by lamoey
Danish Chief of Defense: Fighter Replacement on Track

Finding a design that is used by many partners would be a positive in the eyes of the Danish military, he added.

“There will be tons of parameters,” Bartram said. “But if you’re looking at the smart defense aspect, it will be an advantage in that very focused area. Of course it will have an impact.”

That may give the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter an edge in the competition. In his speech, Bartram identified the US, UK and France as the three biggest allies for the Danish military, and both the US and UK plan to purchase large numbers of F-35s.


http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130509/DEFREG/305090013/Danish-Chief-Defence-Fighter-Replacement-Track

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2013, 22:08
by spazsinbad
Repost 'in the right country' thread - please forgive me DaneLanders....

Danish Chief of Defence: Fighter Replacement on Track 09 May 2013 By AARON MEHTA
"WASHINGTON — Denmark’s ranking military officer “strongly believes” his country will settle on its next-generation fighter design by mid-2015, expressing confidence in a timetable laid out earlier this year.

“I don’t sense any weaknesses in having this decision,” Gen. Peter Bartram, Danish chief of defense, said this morning. “I believe it will be there.”

Holding to that date is important as the life-cycle costs on the F-16 will reach untenable levels within the next decade, Bartram said.

“The reason why 2015 is relevant is, we all know it takes time to implement a new type of aircraft,” he said. “I can look at the life-cycle cost of my F-16s, which have been brilliant aircraft, and it is becoming extremely expensive.”

“I could probably prolong the time the F-16 could be active, but the spare parts, the logistics and the cost of having to keep them operational” would quickly become too expensive, he said. “We need to move forward.”

Bartram made his comments during an event hosted by the American-Danish Business Council at the Danish Embassy in Washington....

...Finding a design that is used by many partners would be a positive in the eyes of the Danish military, he added....

...That may give the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter an edge in the competition. In his speech, Bartram identified the US, UK and France as the three biggest allies for the Danish military, and both the US and UK plan to purchase large numbers of F-35s.

The JSF also has the advantage of economic ties to Denmark. The country is one of eight partner nations involved in funding the fifth-generation jet, and Denmark’s largest defense company Terma is part of the global supply chain for the fighter. Norway and the Netherlands, which share a water border with Denmark, are also partners on the program...."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... ment-Track

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2013, 15:34
by spazsinbad
Oh well - that is that then. China knows all the F-35 secrets via Denmark.... they should throw in the towel... nice.

Chinese hack new Danish super fighter project in China, Denmark / by Anders Holm Nielsen / on May 14, 2013
"As a replacement for the current F16 fighter jet long found in the Danish air force, talks have been to buy the new Joint Strike Fighter Jets, but according to NATO and the American Congress, confidential information about the jets have been systematically hacked by China from the spring of 2009 to the fall of 2012, reports the Danish post Jyllands-Posten....

...”It is a problem that the Chinese might know about the weaknesses of the jet. Of course that could be used in a potential conflict,” said Thomas Elkjer Nissen, an expert in strategic communication at the Academy of Defense....

...”Purchasing new fighter jets is a very large and comprehensive investment. From a Danish point of view, one should ask critical questions of how many states have obtained information about the Joint Strik[en] Fighter program and how much information how much information that has been leaked about the actual jet,” he said.

The Chinese espionage is reported to have started in 2009...."

http://scandasia.com/chinese-hacks-new- ... er-project

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2013, 20:07
by spazsinbad
And the beat goes on.... Another long article about all the hoohaa required in mid 2015.... Best read at source.

Denmark Prioritizes Jobs in New Fighter Competition 01 Sep 2013 GERARD O’DWYER
"HELSINKI — Job creation will stand as the chief factor when the Danish government convenes to select a replacement type for its aging F-16 fleet in mid-2015...."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... /309010008

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2013, 22:25
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:And the beat goes on.... Another long article about all the hoohaa required in mid 2015.... Best read at source.

Denmark Prioritizes Jobs in New Fighter Competition 01 Sep 2013 GERARD O’DWYER
"HELSINKI — Job creation will stand as the chief factor when the Danish government convenes to select a replacement type for its aging F-16 fleet in mid-2015...."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... /309010008
Employment? Well, that puts the F-35A ahead same as Korea's hard price ceiling put SE out front there. Really hard to beat the JSF in terms of longevity/volume-of-production. Lots of jobs that will be around for a long time building lots of parts, especially after Canada pulls out.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 03:43
by popcorn
What is the state of the Danish aerospace industry and what particular strengths do they bring to the table? The more capable their industrial base, the bigger the piece of the JSF pie they may be offered, disproportionately larger than the small number of jets they intend to buy.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 03:44
by popcorn
Deleted

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 06:47
by geogen
popcorn wrote:What is the state of the Danish aerospace industry and what particular strengths do they bring to the table? The more capable their industrial base, the bigger the piece of the JSF pie they may be offered, disproportionately larger than the small number of jets they intend to buy.


Terma for one seems to be in a good position, rightfully so, to remain as supplier of high quality components to the F-35 Program regardless of whether or not Denmark Air Force ultimately selects the F-35 as her next-gen fighter in 2015.

Likewise, perhaps Terma could provide an interesting upgrade option to the next-gen F-18 Advanced Super Hornet's pathway??

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 07:47
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:What is the state of the Danish aerospace industry and what particular strengths do they bring to the table? The more capable their industrial base, the bigger the piece of the JSF pie they may be offered, disproportionately larger than the small number of jets they intend to buy.
Doesn't have to be disproportional if the choice is between building parts for 2000-3000 F-35s or building parts for a few-dozen Typhoons/Gripens.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 09:05
by popcorn
Some info on Terma involvement with F-35 program.

http://www.terma.com/press/news-2013/te ... rporation/

TERMA ENTERS INTO F-35 LONG-TERM CONTRACT WITH LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

... Terma’s involvement in the F-35 Lightning II program since Denmark entered the program in 2002 comprises eight different production programs within advanced composite structural parts and electronics. To date, Terma’s aggregate order intake relative to the F-35 Lightning II program amounts to approx. USD 380 million.

About Terma Terma develops products and systems for defense, non-defense, and security applications, including command and control systems, radar systems, self-protection systems for ships and aircraft, space technology, and advanced aerostructures for the international aircraft industry. The company, headquartered at Aarhus, Denmark, has a total staff of 1,100, realized 2011 revenues of USD 248 million, and maintains international subsidiaries and operations in The Netherlands, Germany, Singapore, India, and in the U.S.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 09:13
by geogen
^^ Exactly. Terma will most likely remain a viable and reliable supplier to the Program, regardless of whether or not Denmark ends up selecting the F-35 as their respective next-gen platform.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 09:36
by haavarla
In Denmarks Financial situation, its will be more about aviable funding and less about costly Bling bling
Which will makes the F-35 and F-15SE, EF and Rafale, too costly to proccure and operate.

My Money is on eighter SH or Gripen.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 12:41
by geogen
That would likely be smart money. Although, perhaps that would be "...either the 'ASH', or 'GNG'"? Both of which would be compatible and 'joint' operable, etc too...not to mention around maybe 60%-70% the procurement cost?

The only hold out however would be if this reported 2015 decision date would still see both mentioned options still in the running.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 01:02
by hb_pencil
The problem is that Denmark just doesn't have the aviation manufacturing base as the other partners. This was viewed as a problem for some time by the partners, and you saw references to the Danes' disquiet appear from time to time.

This development really shortchanges the F-35, and makes it likely to chose another competitor, who can offer more through a traditional offset agreement, not through the open competition method in the JSF partnership.

geogen wrote:^^ Exactly. Terma will most likely remain a viable and reliable supplier to the Program, regardless of whether or not Denmark ends up selecting the F-35 as their respective next-gen platform.


Highly unlikely. I can think of a half dozen companies within the partnership that could do the same type of manufacturing work and would be clamoring for that work. Its specifically stated in the MOU that contracts are contingent on purchases. Those contracts will then be reopen to tender.

haavarla wrote:In Denmarks Financial situation, its will be more about aviable funding and less about costly Bling bling Which will makes the F-35 and F-15SE, EF and Rafale, too costly to proccure and operate.

My Money is on eighter SH or Gripen.


While I think the Super Hornet and Gripen are the most likely partners, Its not for those reasons. As a JSF partner, the F-35 is the lowest cost... unless you strip down a F/A-18E and I'm not assured that's possible. The operating costs will likely go to the F-35 over the lifespan of the fighter. Its certainly not the Gripen NG. However those programs really are higher priced and would basically offer industrial opportunities by charging more.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 02:29
by neurotech
hb_pencil wrote:While I think the Super Hornet and Gripen are the most likely partners, Its not for those reasons. As a JSF partner, the F-35 is the lowest cost... unless you strip down a F/A-18E and I'm not assured that's possible. The operating costs will likely go to the F-35 over the lifespan of the fighter. Its certainly not the Gripen NG. However those programs really are higher priced and would basically offer industrial opportunities by charging more.

Heres the thing; A baseline F/A-18E/F can be made with a low Unit Flyaway Cost, but not an upgraded Block III+ variant. The Navy was offered cheaper F/A-18E/Fs if they commit to a MYP buy of 72 jets per year (E/F and EA-18G variants combined). I doubt Denmark will buy anywhere near enough jets to get a similar deal. If they made a quick decision (by FY2014/FY2015) to buy 150+ jets over 4-5 years, then its possible. They can reduce the support equipment and accessory buy for the F/A-18E/F to reduce package costs, but even that wouldn't save significant amounts. Less add-on avionics, pylons, spares etc.

I remember seeing figures on the cost breakdown of the Navy F/A-18E/Fs and it wasn't the assembly costs of the airframe, but the support (spares, ground equipment etc.) included that pushed up the cost. A F/A-18E/F airframe (no engines, radar, add-on avionics, spares etc) was under $40m, but the WSUC was almost double that. FMS costs would be additional for Denmark.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 06:03
by geogen
hb pencil, I'm sorry but the MOU is for the most part out the window. Probably since around 2011. The original terms of the understanding have been broken. Everything here on out is being re-written ad hoc on the fly. I'm personally thinking such comments as you made are a bluff. Terma is an industry leader and has done the work already. It has capacity and is prepared to deliver high quality product as contracted.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 06:48
by lookieloo
hb_pencil wrote:... I can think of a half dozen companies within the partnership that could do the same type of manufacturing work and would be clamoring for that work. Its specifically stated in the MOU that contracts are contingent on purchases. Those contracts will then be reopen to tender...
Not only are there plenty of options, I rather doubt the DoD and LM will reward Denmark for a cancellation as industrial participation in a vast program is supposed to be a perk for JSF partners. Not making an example of participants that bolt would be an appalling business decision for LM and bad politics for the DoD. There is no bluffing here; if a partner takes its business elsewhere, LM will do likewise.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 07:38
by geogen
To my knowledge, Terma is not a Danish-government-owned aerospace manufacturer? And if it's determined to be a viable, reliable and prudent supplier, then why hold it accountable (and potentially further punish F-35 customers) for an hypothetical government decision to select an alternative platform?

Besides, Terma has US based subsidies. Would those sites and employees in Georgia and D.C. be negatively affected?

I'm just thinking it's best not to assume any sort of definite linkage right now and not jump the gun in assuming a successful manufacturer such as Terma would automatically be terminated from related contracts as you suggest.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 07:40
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:hb pencil, I'm sorry but the MOU is for the most part out the window. Probably since around 2011. The original terms of the understanding have been broken. Everything here on out is being re-written ad hoc on the fly. I'm personally thinking such comments as you made are a bluff. Terma is an industry leader and has done the work already. It has capacity and is prepared to deliver high quality product as contracted.


Wow any sources?

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 07:54
by geogen
XanderCrews wrote:
geogen wrote:hb pencil, I'm sorry but the MOU is for the most part out the window. Probably since around 2011. The original terms of the understanding have been broken. Everything here on out is being re-written ad hoc on the fly. I'm personally thinking such comments as you made are a bluff. Terma is an industry leader and has done the work already. It has capacity and is prepared to deliver high quality product as contracted.


Wow any sources?


MOUs and business strategies are being re-assessed, revised and re-established as schedules and costs change year to year. It is not the same 2002-2007 Program and business plan.

The dynamics are highly in flux and flat out need to adjust, be redefined and be flexible, given the environment today and going forward.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 08:16
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
geogen wrote:hb pencil, I'm sorry but the MOU is for the most part out the window. Probably since around 2011. The original terms of the understanding have been broken. Everything here on out is being re-written ad hoc on the fly. I'm personally thinking such comments as you made are a bluff. Terma is an industry leader and has done the work already. It has capacity and is prepared to deliver high quality product as contracted.


Wow any sources?


MOUs and business strategies are being re-assessed, revised and re-established as schedules and costs change year to year. It is not the same 2002-2007 Program and business plan.

The dynamics are highly in flux and flat out need to adjust, be redefined and be flexible, given the environment today and going forward.


So no.

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 17:46
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:hb pencil, I'm sorry but the MOU is for the most part out the window. Probably since around 2011. The original terms of the understanding have been broken. Everything here on out is being re-written ad hoc on the fly. I'm personally thinking such comments as you made are a bluff. Terma is an industry leader and has done the work already. It has capacity and is prepared to deliver high quality product as contracted.


Okay, wow. This is one of the more ignorant things you have claimed, which is not surprising given the tripe you've been posting lately. Its patently false. The MOU governs the operation's entire program: stating its "the most part out of the window" is just ridiculous. Neither is it being rewritten "on the fly." The MOU does not manage the specifics of schedules and costs, only how they are managed by the program. They define who is responsible for what, and various eventualities. It is highly flexible, and has only undergone minor revisions in the preceding 8 years to clarify language.(see for example the equation for the levy on 5.6). Moreover the schedules and costs have little to do with how the contracts were awarded. All the contracts awarded were done so under article 7.1:

The Participants, through their Contracting Agencies, will
require their Contractors to select subcontractors (which term
includes subcontractors from all of the Participants’ nations)
on a competitive, Best Value basis to the maximum practical
extent consistent with the objectives and requirements of the
Contracts and this MOU.


There is some wiggle room there, but the vast majority of contracts were awarded this way. It remains in force; several contracts were recently awarded such as Magellan Aerospace's work on horizontal tail surfaces.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1185105 ... rk-on-f-35

Events like that do not occur without an MOU.

geogen wrote:To my knowledge, Terma is not a Danish-government-owned aerospace manufacturer? And if it's determined to be a viable, reliable and prudent supplier, then why hold it accountable (and potentially further punish F-35 customers) for an hypothetical government decision to select an alternative platform?


Why? because its in contravention of the MOU section 7.3:

7.3 The Participants acknowledge that, subject to the
submission of Best Value offers, industries that are in the
nations of Participants procuring JSF Air Systems under this MOU
and that were awarded SDD subcontracts will normally also be
awarded subcontracts for low rate initial production and full
rate production work,
as well as for related sustainment and
follow-on development work.


You only get to bid on contracts if your national government pays to participate in the JSF program. As 7.3 makes clear, To continue your contracts into FRP that government must intend to procure the F-35. Furthermore you cannot be in the MOU if you do not intend to participate in the production phase. So it makes no sense whatsoever for other partners keep a manufacturer from another nation's government isn't paying for the program.

Stating that Terma is a World Class manufacturer ignores that almost all of the contractors in JSF program are "world class." Magellan Kongsberg AS, Avcorp, BAE systems and others are also "world leaders" in their field, undertaking similar work for other companies. And many of them would welcome the opportunity to undertake the work that Terma currently undertakes.

Currently Avcorp manufacturers the outer wing section for the F-35C; with some time they can retool and also produce the entire wing section. Kongsberg produces leading edge flaps. Its almost certain that other national governments would force the contracts to be retendered in order to give their manufacturers a chance at winning the contract. This is something that has been made clear to the Canadian Government during its recent debate. While some manufacturers may not lose their contracts immediately, they are assured to lose them within several years when an alternate supplier is designated.

Seriously, I and others are getting tired reading your utterly fictitious statements about the program... if you don't have a grasp of this basic aspect of the program's operation, then frankly, it calls into question the veracity of anything else you write on here.

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 01:39
by geogen
hb_pencil -

Yes, there is wiggle room, as you say. And that's the pertinent issue here, going forward.

e.g., has Terma been awarded sub-contract work even without Danish procurement of aircraft to date? Yes!

See?

There is absolutely no link today and there will simply be continued evolving definitions and interpretations to the original MOU going forward.

Questions as to what precisely defines "a Participant", for example, are and will continue be redefined in the future. Has Denmark already been 'a Participant'? Yes. They have. But back to your wiggle room comment... LRIP and possibly even FRP (whichever actual annual FRP rates will ultimately reveal) would include sub-contract to participant nation industries. But that doesn't necessarily 'exclude' non-continuing participant countries per se either. HB_P, the reality is that the Program has been constantly in flux and changing in understanding of how the business model and industrial end will ultimately execute over the years. My high respects for your service and best wishes.

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 01:53
by spazsinbad
HUH? As per LeakyWiki:
"...Denmark
Denmark has joined the Joint Strike Fighter program as a Level 3 partner, and the Royal Danish Air Force is considering the replacement of 48 of its aging F-16 fighters with F-35As...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_M ... rocurement

Does this not give them the Danes the right? Do we have to kick 'em outta Edwards?

Denmark Future Air Power Læs mere om F-35
"...Joining the Joint Strike Fighter program in 2002 during the System Development and Demonstration phase, Denmark has helped influence technical elements of the F-35 Lightning II....

...TERMA...

...The Danish Air Force has also contributed an F-16, pilot and maintenance personnel to support the F-35 flight test program at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif."

https://www.f35.com/global/participation/denmark

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 02:14
by Prinz_Eugn
geogen wrote:Questions as to what precisely defines "a Participant", for example, are and will continue be redefined in the future. Has Denmark already been 'a Participant'? Yes. They have. But back to your wiggle room comment... LRIP and possibly even FRP (whichever actual annual FRP rates will ultimately reveal) would include sub-contract to participant nation industries. But that doesn't necessarily 'exclude' non-continuing participant countries per se either. HB_P, the reality is that the Program has been constantly in flux and changing in understanding of how the business model and industrial end will ultimately execute over the years. My high respects for your service and best wishes.


Even if it's not very specifically laid out in the MOU, I find it very hard to believe that any country in the program is going to stand for keeping a supplier in a non-procuring country when they could get a bigger slice of the pie for themselves.

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 02:18
by Prinz_Eugn
geogen wrote:Questions as to what precisely defines "a Participant", for example, are and will continue be redefined in the future. Has Denmark already been 'a Participant'? Yes. They have. But back to your wiggle room comment... LRIP and possibly even FRP (whichever actual annual FRP rates will ultimately reveal) would include sub-contract to participant nation industries. But that doesn't necessarily 'exclude' non-continuing participant countries per se either. HB_P, the reality is that the Program has been constantly in flux and changing in understanding of how the business model and industrial end will ultimately execute over the years. My high respects for your service and best wishes.


Even if it's not very specifically laid out in the MOU, I find it very hard to believe that any country in the program is going to stand for keeping a supplier in a non-procuring country when they could get a bigger slice of the pie for themselves.

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 02:34
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:hb_pencil -

Yes, there is wiggle room, as you say. And that's the pertinent issue here, going forward.

e.g., has Terma been awarded sub-contract work even without Danish procurement of aircraft to date? Yes!

See?

There is absolutely no link today and there will simply be continued evolving definitions and interpretations to the original MOU going forward.


Questions as to what precisely defines "a Participant", for example, are and will continue be redefined in the future. Has Denmark already been 'a Participant'? Yes. They have. But back to your wiggle room comment... LRIP and possibly even FRP (whichever actual annual FRP rates will ultimately reveal) would include sub-contract to participant nation industries. But that doesn't necessarily 'exclude' non-continuing participant countries per se either. HB_P, the reality is that the Program has been constantly in flux and changing in understanding of how the business model and industrial end will ultimately execute over the years. My high respects for your service and best wishes.



Because they currently have the intent to purchase as Spaz has posted. Its clearly stated in Annex I of the document. If they decide to chose another fighter, then the intent to purchase goes away. That's not a new interpretation; its clearly stated in 7.3. That's how DND sees and understands it (you know, the organizational entity that signed the contract for Canada), That's how DoD sees it, That's what LM sees it, and has publicly stated as much.

Really the only "wiggle room" exists where the Danes are right now, and kinda where the Canadians are (although we were a little smarter by saying that we're still intending to purchase it but undertaking an "options analysis.") There is no wiggle room if you go hold a competition select another fighter and then start procuring it. That goes against the letter and spirit of the MOU... As is stated in the preamble:

Desiring to cooperate in the production, sustainment, and
follow-on development of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to
satisfy similar operational requirements;


Well if you're not cooperating in those things, you can't be a partner in the program. No partner = no contracts.

Do you really think that the nine other partners with their own major industrial interests won't push to get Terma removed? Do you really think that Canada, with Magellan, Avcorp, and ASCO won't use their position on the project to remove Denmark? Saying otherwise completely ignores the influence these firms (and the ones in other countries) have on their national governments.

Finally, what you're stating goes against about 40 years of precedent in multinational procurement programs.... something you seem blithely unaware of. If you don't purchase the collaborative effort's fruits, you leave the program. The only real exception I can think of is MEADS, but then again the United States and Germany decided to continue funding the program's development phase in order to uphold their agreement. However the agreement governing MEADS was much different in tone and expectations... moreover the role of the US in that program (as the main development partner) is much different than with Denmark in regards to the JSF.)It doesn't happen the way you're stating, no matter how smart you think you are.

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 08:49
by neurotech
The JSF program, and especially F-35A variant, are at a technology level and development stage where its the best value fighter "available" to partners. There would have to be a really compelling reason to choose something else. No current fighter (except the F-22) comes close to overall capability of a F-35. A country like Denmark isn't going to develop their own 5th gen fighter.

Even though the F-35 might appear more expensive on paper (eg. South Korea F-X program), The operating costs are comparable to the F-16 or F/A-18. I'm not convinced a Typhoon is cheaper to operate, and the F-15E definitely isn't cheaper than a F-35A.

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 23:44
by popcorn
LM has just made it explicitly clear to Canada that partner countries which do not procure the F-35 will be at risk of losing contracts related to the aircraft. Something for the Danes to think about.

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 23:49
by spazsinbad
Stroll down to this entry for Canuk warning: Lockheed Martin: F-35 Cancellation Would Mean Canada Out $10.5 Billion 13 Sep 2013 Ross Marowits, The Canadian Press http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-60.html

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 23:49
by popcorn
LM has just made it explicitly clear to Canada that partner countries which do not procure the F-35 will be at risk of losing contracts related to the aircraft. Something for the Danes to think about.

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 23:56
by spazsinbad
Stroll down to this entry for Canuk warning: Lockheed Martin: F-35 Cancellation Would Mean Canada Out $10.5 Billion 13 Sep 2013 Ross Marowits, The Canadian Press http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-60.html

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2013, 02:52
by popcorn
LOL Spaz.. now we're replicating posts in tandem :D

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2013, 07:43
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:LOL Spaz.. now we're replicating posts in tandem :D
Issue seems to do with using "go back" button on the browser after submission (not sure if it's Chrome-specific), would probably be less of a problem if the alert bug were fixed.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2014, 21:13
by spazsinbad
Denmark Launches F-16 Replacement Program 14 Apr 2014 Our Bureau

"The Danish Ministry of Defense has issued a Request for Binding Information (RBI) on April 10 in order to evaluate the four candidates for the replacement of its current fleet of 30-year old Lockheed F-16AM/BM fighters.

The four bidders for the competition are Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet, Lockheed's F-35A Joint Strike Fighter and Saab Gripen E. At present, Danish air force has 30 F-16 operational.

The RBI had been planned in the Defence Planning 2013-2017 and the bidders are expected to submit their response to the request in July 2014 to the Director of the Nyt Kampfly Program (New Combat Aircraft Program).

An evaluation report will be provided to the Minister of Defense as a basis for procurement proposals at the political level. Planning calls for a final decision in mid-2015, followed by Parliamentary approval and, if obtained, negotiations with the selected manufacturer.

Director of New Combat Aircraft Program, Lone Lindsby said about the RBI, “I am pleased that we are sending the request for information, because it is an important milestone in the program.

We are trying to keep the planned schedule, and we are very focused on providing a clear and transparent decision support that provides the best possible conditions for the final decision in this fighter procurement process. “

The quality of the Evaluation Process will be assured externally by Deloitte Denmark (part of the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited DTTL) in cooperation with RAND Europe (an US-owned company). This should help ensure that the process is conducted in accordance with the principles of traceability, transparency, integrity and equality."

SOURCE: http://www.defenseworld.net/news/10384/ ... 0w9b5B-8kI

Re:

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2014, 06:13
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Stroll down to this entry for Canuk warning: Lockheed Martin: F-35 Cancellation Would Mean Canada Out $10.5 Billion 13 Sep 2013 Ross Marowits, The Canadian Press http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-60.html

Which, is one of the reasons why much of the discussion of cancelling F-35 orders is wild speculation.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2014, 07:03
by spazsinbad
Denmark Kicks Off Fighter Contest 14 Apr 2014 Anthony Osborne

"...The new aircraft are likely to enter service between 2020-2024, by which time the Danish F-16s will be up to 45 years old.

“This is a comprehensive and detailed information gathering to help provide the New Combat Aircraft Program with the best possible data base to analyze and evaluate the candidate aircraft on the various assessment areas,” Danish officials say.

Copenhagen announced in March last year that as part of its defense plan 2013-2017, it would embark on a search for a new fighter aircraft, an initiative originally started in 2005 but shelved in 2010.

Denmark is already a Level 3 signatory to the Joint Strike Fighter program, having signed up in 2002. Indeed, one of its F-16Bs is stationed at Edwards AFB, Calif., to support the aircraft’s flight test program. But being a signatory to the program does not oblige it to purchase the aircraft, and Danish industry has reportedly expressed disappointment about the amount of business won from the F-35 program."

SOURCE: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 678532.xml

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2014, 19:37
by pron
Today the Request for Binding information (RBI) for the evaluation in Denmark had to be in.

Just an hour before the time Sweden and Saab said they would not take part in the competition.

The planes left are then - F-18 Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed Martin F-35.

This is the letter they got from Sweden:

”Let me first of all express our gratitude that you have invited the Gripen system as a potential candidate for the next new fighter system in Denmark. I would also like to thank you for a good and open dialogue during the process.

We have, however, after internal deliberations also including our industry, concluded that we choose not to answer your request for binding information (RBI April 10, 2014).

I once again thank you for having invited us and wish you a successful conclusion of your acquisition process.”

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2014, 23:56
by XanderCrews
pron wrote:Today the Request for Binding information (RBI) for the evaluation in Denmark had to be in.

Just an hour before the time Sweden and Saab said they would not take part in the competition.

The planes left are then - F-18 Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed Martin F-35.

This is the letter they got from Sweden:

”Let me first of all express our gratitude that you have invited the Gripen system as a potential candidate for the next new fighter system in Denmark. I would also like to thank you for a good and open dialogue during the process.

We have, however, after internal deliberations also including our industry, concluded that we choose not to answer your request for binding information (RBI April 10, 2014).

I once again thank you for having invited us and wish you a successful conclusion of your acquisition process.”



That is interesting! :shock:

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 00:11
by popcorn
Let's see how Bill spins this, no doubt he will be privy to what went into Saab's decision.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 00:21
by XanderCrews
http://online.wsj.com/articles/saabs-gr ... 1405955632

further confirmation. Thank you to pron for the heads up and welcome aboard

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 01:41
by rotosequence
popcorn wrote:Let's see how Bill spins this, no doubt he will be privy to what went into Saab's decision.


Probably something to the effect of a highly tailored "competition" that's asking for a distinctly F-35 shaped aircraft.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 01:43
by zerion

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 02:28
by popcorn

Thanks. Interesting that Saab couldn't just come out directly with the reason.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 02:53
by XanderCrews
rotosequence wrote:
popcorn wrote:Let's see how Bill spins this, no doubt he will be privy to what went into Saab's decision.


Probably something to the effect of a highly tailored "competition" that's asking for a distinctly F-35 shaped aircraft.


I wonder why? :roll:

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 09:40
by Corsair1963
I hope Bill has a good retirement package. As when the F-35 enters full squadron service and turns out to be hugely successful. He'll be lucky to get a job as a janitor. Let alone any respectable job in the Aviation Industry. :doh:

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 09:44
by mk82
The Danes could not handle the "sixth" generation Gripen (NG?) bwahahaha....seriously BS and his sixth generation b***crap. Its interesting that SAAB has no confidence in the Danish competition....poor Bill...

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 13:40
by XanderCrews


Saab has become more selective in bidding since 2008, when the company responded to a request for information from Norway, which not only rejected Gripen but published deliberately inflated cost figures for the Swedish fighter, along with an unrealistically low cost for the F-35. Similarly, the company told Canada last year that it would not provide the level of detail that Canada’s fighter procurement secretariat had wanted unless there was a firm commitment to a competition.


weh :slap:

So to summarize, in Competition that gripen NG has gone against F-35 its lost (Norway), and when it hasn't lost against F-35, its because they refused to bid (Canada, Denmark) It lost in India, and it was vetoed in Switzerland. It won in Brazil because of a huge promise of offsets and a US political scandal. As of right now the first NG prototype isn't set to fly until after the "long delayed" F-35A and Bee have reached IOC. The original Gripen NG concept was first pitched in 2005, won't reach service until 2018 assuming no delays.

#6thgeneration

#GreatestOfAllTime

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 14:32
by mk82
BS is truly a loser......a sore one at that! If I were SAAB, I would tell BS to shut the f**k up...he is making SAAB look bad as he is insinuating that SAAB does not trust their potential Scandinavian customers (there has not been any indication that Denmark will sabotage SAAB's bid!). That is not great advertising! Frankly, I think SAAB realised that their Gripen NG is not going to do too well against its competitors after a premilinary look at the Danish requirements....sorry Bill...that is how the cookie crumbles.

I guess BS now hates Swiss chocolates and Danish herring. :devil:

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 14:46
by steakanddoritos
mk82 wrote:BS is truly a loser......a sore one at that! If I were SAAB, I would tell BS to shut the f**k up...he is making SAAB look bad as he is insinuating that SAAB does not trust their potential Scandinavian customers (there has not been any indication that Denmark will sabotage SAAB's bid!). That is not great advertising! Frankly, I think SAAB realised that their Gripen NG is not going to do too well against its competitors after a premilinary look at the Danish requirements....sorry Bill...that is how the cookie crumbles.

I guess BS now hates Swiss chocolates and Danish herring. :devil:

Is there any serious evidence that Denmark has jimmied the competition, or at least is looking seriously at the F-35 more than other competitors (SHornet and Tiffy)?

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 15:01
by mk82
steakanddoritos wrote:
mk82 wrote:BS is truly a loser......a sore one at that! If I were SAAB, I would tell BS to shut the f**k up...he is making SAAB look bad as he is insinuating that SAAB does not trust their potential Scandinavian customers (there has not been any indication that Denmark will sabotage SAAB's bid!). That is not great advertising! Frankly, I think SAAB realised that their Gripen NG is not going to do too well against its competitors after a premilinary look at the Danish requirements....sorry Bill...that is how the cookie crumbles.

I guess BS now hates Swiss chocolates and Danish herring. :devil:

Is there any serious evidence that Denmark has jimmied the competition, or at least is looking seriously at the F-35 more than other competitors (SHornet and Tiffy)?


The Danish government's words and actions do not indicate any sort of bias in their fighter competition at this point in time. BS was just making half arsed excuses for SAAB's refusal to bid.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 15:12
by bring_it_on
Clearly the Gripen, the only 6th generation fighter in the competition is at a disadvantage when everybody else is showing up with 5th generation and 4.5 generation designs :bang:

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 16:12
by KamenRiderBlade
bring_it_on wrote:Clearly the Gripen, the only 6th generation fighter in the competition is at a disadvantage when everybody else is showing up with 5th generation and 4.5 generation designs :bang:


<sarcasm> I thought Gripen was claimed to be 7th, 8th, or 9th gen; not this lowly 6th gen</sarcasm>

=D

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 16:37
by XanderCrews
steakanddoritos wrote:
mk82 wrote:BS is truly a loser......a sore one at that! If I were SAAB, I would tell BS to shut the f**k up...he is making SAAB look bad as he is insinuating that SAAB does not trust their potential Scandinavian customers (there has not been any indication that Denmark will sabotage SAAB's bid!). That is not great advertising! Frankly, I think SAAB realised that their Gripen NG is not going to do too well against its competitors after a premilinary look at the Danish requirements....sorry Bill...that is how the cookie crumbles.

I guess BS now hates Swiss chocolates and Danish herring. :devil:

Is there any serious evidence that Denmark has jimmied the competition, or at least is looking seriously at the F-35 more than other competitors (SHornet and Tiffy)?


good question. We would have to have a look and see.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 16:41
by steakanddoritos
The Eurofighter is fairly expensive, I'm not sure the Danes will be able to afford it. However, it has the advantage of European partnership, although this advantage is shared with the F-35. Boeing is desperate to sell more SHornets, I wouldn't be suprised if they try to jack the price down as low as possible. Frankly, I see the F-35 having a good shot at this. Sorry Billy Bob.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 16:53
by XanderCrews
steakanddoritos wrote:The Eurofighter is fairly expensive, I'm not sure the Danes will be able to afford it. However, it has the advantage of European partnership, although this advantage is shared with the F-35. Boeing is desperate to sell more SHornets, I wouldn't be suprised if they try to jack the price down as low as possible. Frankly, I see the F-35 having a good shot at this. Sorry Billy Bob.


Boeing will go hard, this is one they were hoping to have a shot at to extend the line, its slated to shut down in 2016 I believe. If the danes make their decision after that, it won't be an option anymore


KamenRiderBlade wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:Clearly the Gripen, the only 6th generation fighter in the competition is at a disadvantage when everybody else is showing up with 5th generation and 4.5 generation designs :bang:


<sarcasm> I thought Gripen was claimed to be 7th, 8th, or 9th gen; not this lowly 6th gen</sarcasm>

=D


11rd gen.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 17:21
by spazsinbad
Yep. According to Spinal Tap - crank it up to ELEVEN!

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 19:07
by bring_it_on
spazsinbad wrote:Yep. According to Spinal Tap - crank it up to ELEVEN!


No, 11th gen would be the Gripen G/H around 2040.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 20:01
by XanderCrews
mk82 wrote:
steakanddoritos wrote:
mk82 wrote:BS is truly a loser......a sore one at that! If I were SAAB, I would tell BS to shut the f**k up...he is making SAAB look bad as he is insinuating that SAAB does not trust their potential Scandinavian customers (there has not been any indication that Denmark will sabotage SAAB's bid!). That is not great advertising! Frankly, I think SAAB realised that their Gripen NG is not going to do too well against its competitors after a premilinary look at the Danish requirements....sorry Bill...that is how the cookie crumbles.

I guess BS now hates Swiss chocolates and Danish herring. :devil:

Is there any serious evidence that Denmark has jimmied the competition, or at least is looking seriously at the F-35 more than other competitors (SHornet and Tiffy)?


The Danish government's words and actions do not indicate any sort of bias in their fighter competition at this point in time. BS was just making half arsed excuses for SAAB's refusal to bid.



http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen- ... -campaign/

Denmark is set to buy new fighter planes and the task of defining the new aircraft and who is to deliver them is in full swing. Saab is one of the four candidates - and we are keen to help to ensure an open debate, with this newsletter as one of the initiatives. We will use this newsletter to present Saab's views on the debate and the selection process – and to provide concrete information about the Gripen aircraft and our fighter aircraft activities in other countries.

Right now, we are eagerly awaiting the Danish RBI (Request for Binding Information). This document will define the requirements of Denmark's new fighter aircraft and set the framework for the ongoing process.

With the Gripen, Saab has won half of the competitions we have participated in, after adjustment for the cases where the country in question finally had to cancel the procurement. Most recently, Brazil has invested in the Gripen and, in fact, there is more global interest in this aircraft now than ever before. This proves how competitive the Gripen programme is – in terms of both technology and price.

We are also very optimistic about the opportunities in Denmark. We consider the Gripen to be the obvious choice for the Danes in view of the strong combination of flight characteristics, technology and economy. Based on Saab's unique industrial cooperation experience, we will be able to create many new jobs in Denmark.

We will naturally present this argument in the ongoing debate, while also respecting that this is a major, important decision for Denmark – and that the debate must therefore be as broad and public as possible. We look forward to an open, transparent and fair competition. In this newsletter we present our views and information, while at the same time we wish to engage in dialogue with Denmark and the Danes.

With kind regards,

Robert Björklund
Campaign Leader, Gripen Denmark


Went from that to not even bidding. :doh:

remember though the F-35 is the worst ever that everyone wants, and is emulating, and the Gripen is the best ever, that no wants, and Saab isn't bothering to bid it. What a wacky world we live in.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 20:04
by XanderCrews
bring_it_on wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Yep. According to Spinal Tap - crank it up to ELEVEN!


No, 11th gen would be the Gripen G/H around 2040.


Gripen was only in service 8 years before they invented the NG concept in 2005. So its looking like by 2027 we will be seeing your G/H's concept art. exciting

The four candidates included in the selection process for the new Danish fighter are:
- Eurofighter Typhoon
- Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet
- Lockheed F-35A Joint Strike Fighter
- Saab Gripen E.

Request for Binding Information (RBI)

The RBI had been planned in the Defence Planning 2013-2017 and it consists of a questionnaire with approximately 950 questions, a total of 1000 pages and it contains four chapters for each of the areas of evaluation:
Strategic issues will include focus on the relationship between the candidates and the overall Danish security and defense policy objectives. It is partly about security aspects, and partly on the military strategic aspects in relation to cooperation with other countries.
Military issues will focus on candidates’ ability to provide operational power and if the aircraft is future proof with questions about life expectancy and risks associated with each candidate.
The Economic evaluation focuses on a comparative assessment of the candidates’ life cycle costs, including costs associated with the acquisition and ongoing operation and maintenance (O&S costs).
The questions about industrial cooperation focuses on how the procurement of the candidates may support the Danish Industry and Danish security interests.

Selection process; final decision end 2015

The candidateshave received the RBI 10-apr-2014 and are expected to submit their response to the request in July 2014 tot the Director of the Nyt Kampfly Program (New Combat Aircraft Program).
Hereafter, it will be analyzed, validated and eventually additional information will be gathered from the manufacturers. As a result an evaluation report will be provided to the Minister of Defense as a basis for procurement proposals at the political level. Planning is a final decision about mid-2015, followed by Parliamentary Approval and negotiations with the selected manufacturer.

Director of New Combat Aircraft Program, Lone Lindsby said about the RBI:
“I am pleased that we are sending the request for information, because it is an important milestone in the program. We are trying to keep the planned schedule, and we are very focused on providing a clear and transparent decision support that provides the best possible conditions for the final decision in this fighter procurement process. “

Quality assurance by RAND and Deloitte

The Evaluation Process quality will be assured externally by Deloitte Denmark (part of the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited DTTL, a British company) in cooperation with RAND Europe (an US owned company). This should help to ensure that the process is conducted in accordance with the principles of traceability, transparency, integrity and equality.


http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=1143

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2014, 05:03
by Corsair1963
XanderCrews wrote:
Went from that to not even bidding. :doh:

remember though the F-35 is the worst ever that everyone wants, and is emulating, and the Gripen is the best ever, that no wants, and Saab isn't bothering to bid it. What a wacky world we live in.




LOL The Gripen NG while a very capable 4.5 Generation Fighter and good value for the money in my book. It is hardly in the league with the F-35 in Capability! Which, explains why fighter sales of 4.5 Generation Fighters and not done so well. I's obvious most have been waiting on the F-35. Including "Denmark". :doh:

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2015, 21:50
by spazsinbad
Reasons to be cheerful? Parts 5 Billion....?
$5B And 700 High Tech Jobs: Reasons Why F-35 Has Friends
16 Jun 2015 Colin Clark

"...Some $5 billion of those reasons were on display yesterday when the Danish company Terma and Lockheed Martin signed an MOU giving Terma, Denmark’s defense company, a whole lot of business should a new Danish government approve purchase of the F-35.

Terma signed a long-term agreement with Lockheed Martin two years ago for manufacture of composite and bonded assembly parts for the three variants of the F-35. It has also signed agreements for other F-35 work with Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, General Dynamics, and Marvin Engineering....

....He [Terma CEO Jens Maaløe] also said it would mean $5 billion or more for Denmark over the next few years. With a GDP of $335 billion, that is not chump change for tiny Denmark.

Danes head to the polls on Thursday. If the current government stays in power then a decision on whether to fully commit to the F-35 is expected relatively quickly. Should the opposition win, they will need time to analyze the data and the country’s finances before coming to what most observers expect will be the decision to stick with the program and buy at least 24 F-35As.

Denmark has been a Joint Strike Fighter partner since 2002. However, as good stewards of their taxpayer’s money, the current government is analyzing the F-35A, Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon for the $4.5 billion contract. Each company presented bids for 24, 30 and 36 combat aircraft...."

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/5b-a ... s-friends/

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 14:39
by maus92
Retired Danish fighter pilots favour the Super Hornet over the F-35 and Eurofighter

DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN / 21AUG15

"Some Defence Watch readers have been pointing to a recent article published by Politiken, a Danish newspaper. The piece was written by three former Royal Danish Air Force pilots – Michael Huusom, Niels Gunnar Sørensen and Ole Ryberg...."

"As one Defence Watch reader noted, the pilots argue that it is time to reassess the myth about the F-35 being the favourite option in the Danish fighter jet competition, suggesting that “Denmark does not need a ‘first day of war’ plane which is still in development without any certainty about future costs.”

“The F-35 was initially intended as a good and cheap replacement for the F-16 plane,” they write. “But it has developed into a very expensive and complicated plane.”

“We do not need a dogfighter like the Eurofighter either, which is expensive and falls behind the technological development,” they also wrote.

The pilots recommend Denmark acquire the Super Hornet, which they acknowledge might not be the sexiest choice, but it “can deliver what Denmark needs at an affordable price.”"

Original article, in Danish: http://politiken.dk/debat/kroniken/ECE2 ... gtige-fly/

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... urofighter

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 15:50
by bring_it_on
The Super Hornet is highly suitable for customers that are not looking for either first day attack capability or combat performance edge over current and future threats. It should serve Denmark well if this is the what interests them. In that case I am pretty sure SAAB can sell the Gripen C's for less than the Rhino's cost.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 16:18
by SpudmanWP
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:

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 16:48
by sferrin
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:

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 19:07
by XanderCrews
Yawn

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 21:39
by borg
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..

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 21:42
by spazsinbad
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/

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 21:44
by borg
sure i can, and i just did.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 21:48
by spazsinbad
I regularly report 'borg' as a troll but sadly that carries no weight here.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 22:06
by borg
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?

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 22:30
by XanderCrews
borg wrote:Lol.
You guys just can't stand any critics towards Fat birdy, can you..


Yeah everyone really flew off the handle there.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 22:35
by borg
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.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 22:39
by pron
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?

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 22:40
by XanderCrews
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.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 23:10
by SpudmanWP
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

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 01:27
by cantaz
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.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 01:35
by popcorn
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 .

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 10:23
by borg
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.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 14:41
by XanderCrews
Of all the things that have happened in this program, surely this is the worst

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 17:51
by lamoey
borg wrote: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.


Nor du they have a common land and sea border with Russia.
Image

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 18:14
by borg
Very true, but the Article 5 does still apply?
Its not entirely up to Norway alone to stop Putin at its border..

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 18:41
by mk82
“The F-35 was initially intended as a good and cheap replacement for the F-16 plane,” they write. “But it has developed into a very expensive and complicated plane.”

“We do not need a dogfighter like the Eurofighter either, which is expensive and falls behind the technological development,” they also wrote.

The pilots recommend Denmark acquire the Super Hornet, which they acknowledge might not be the sexiest choice, but it “can deliver what Denmark needs at an affordable price.”

Have you guys detected an oxymoron here? Hmmmm....the F35 is too "complicated" which actually allows it to be in line with "technological development" whilst the Eurofighter is bad because it falls behind "the technological development" (What!??.....so you want a plane that is "uncomplicated" and consequently will fall behind "technological development" but still diss the Eurofighter :doh: ) and is a dogfighter (wow....ex Viper fighter pilots actually saying that too much dogfighting ability is bad!!! Damn!!!! David Axe better fly to Denmark and slap some sense into those ex Viper fighter pilots! :devil: )

A few more comments about that Politiken article. There is certainty about the future cost of F35As.....the cost will go down!

The impression I got from that article was that the Danes are happy to let their NATO partners do all the day 1/kick the door down heavy lifting whilst their Air Force sit back, relax and chew some herring and then join in when things are going swimmingly. I doubt that is the position of the Danish MOD.

Boeing can offer the advanced Super Hornet to the Danes to help them keep up with "technological development". The Danes just has the pay all the development costs on its own....good luck with that.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 19:18
by joost
Heyhey, chewing herring is our (Dutch) habit! :D

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 05:14
by arrow-nautics
maus92 wrote:Retired Danish fighter pilots favour the Super Hornet over the F-35 and Eurofighter
Maus92, since you like bad news I suggest you pay close attention to Canadian media for the next 60 days. We have election on so JSF juices will be flowin'

So, has Denmark put the final nail in the coffin or is this conjecture and nonsense?

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 06:30
by guy@rdaf.dk
joost wrote:Heyhey, chewing herring is our (Dutch) habit! :D


No!!! Yours is chewing frikadellen and croquetten.....


Regarding the 3 danish "Fighter Pilots", and in prioritized order from the most experienced and down:

1) Niels Gunnar Sørensen flew 1.000 hours on the F-16 between the years 1980-84 (so really current experience.....)
2) Ole Ryberg only flew 15 hours in the F-16 before being transferred to another job (thats what getting washed out was called at the time)
3) Michael Huusom flew the F-100 until 1984 (so also a really really current "Fighter" experience)

Need I say more?

Oh, but wait! I forgot to mention that according to http://www.nytkampfly.dk (site that covers the new fighter competition), they where all "influenced" by Boeing.

Sad to see former RDAF colleagues prostituting them selves.

At least I know that the guys over at the New Fighter Program Office have made an unbiassed comparison which the decision makers will get.

http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/7463

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 06:54
by popcorn
guy@rdaf.dk wrote:
joost wrote:Heyhey, chewing herring is our (Dutch) habit! :D


No!!! Yours is chewing frikadellen and croquetten.....


Regarding the 3 danish "Fighter Pilots", and in prioritized order from the most experienced and down:

1) Niels Gunnar Sørensen flew 1.000 hours on the F-16 between the years 1980-84 (so really current experience.....)
2) Ole Ryberg only flew 15 hours in the F-16 before being transferred to another job (thats what getting washed out was called at the time)
3) Michael Huusom flew the F-100 until 1984 (so also a really really current "Fighter" experience)

Need I say more?

Oh, but wait! I forgot to mention that according to http://www.nytkampfly.dk (site that covers the new fighter competition), they where all "influenced" by Boeing.

Sad to see former RDAF colleagues prostituting them selves.

At least I know that the guys over at the New Fighter Program Office have made an unbiassed comparison which the decision makers will get.

http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/7463

Surely Boeing would not stoop so low?' :shock:

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 07:46
by Dragon029
coughKC46cough

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 09:24
by XanderCrews
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 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?



BAHAHAHA!


Now where is Maus92?

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 09:26
by XanderCrews
guy@rdaf.dk wrote:
joost wrote:Heyhey, chewing herring is our (Dutch) habit! :D


No!!! Yours is chewing frikadellen and croquetten.....


Regarding the 3 danish "Fighter Pilots", and in prioritized order from the most experienced and down:

1) Niels Gunnar Sørensen flew 1.000 hours on the F-16 between the years 1980-84 (so really current experience.....)
2) Ole Ryberg only flew 15 hours in the F-16 before being transferred to another job (thats what getting washed out was called at the time)
3) Michael Huusom flew the F-100 until 1984 (so also a really really current "Fighter" experience)

Need I say more?

Oh, but wait! I forgot to mention that according to http://www.nytkampfly.dk (site that covers the new fighter competition), they where all "influenced" by Boeing.

Sad to see former RDAF colleagues prostituting them selves.

At least I know that the guys over at the New Fighter Program Office have made an unbiassed comparison which the decision makers will get.

http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/7463



Died laughing. Thank you. Nice work Boeing. Very smooth

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 14:20
by arrow-nautics
guy@rdaf.dk wrote:No!!! Yours is chewing frikadellen and croquetten.....
Guy@rdaf.dk, don't take it too personally. We Canuckleheads get the razzing too, what with our clubbing of seals, eating whale blubber & poutine munching :devil:

Denmark & Canada have this in common, neither of us can figure out our F-35's from our arses :devil:

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 16:19
by mk82
guy@rdaf.dk wrote:
joost wrote:Heyhey, chewing herring is our (Dutch) habit! :D


No!!! Yours is chewing frikadellen and croquetten.....


Regarding the 3 danish "Fighter Pilots", and in prioritized order from the most experienced and down:

1) Niels Gunnar Sørensen flew 1.000 hours on the F-16 between the years 1980-84 (so really current experience.....)
2) Ole Ryberg only flew 15 hours in the F-16 before being transferred to another job (thats what getting washed out was called at the time)
3) Michael Huusom flew the F-100 until 1984 (so also a really really current "Fighter" experience)

Need I say more?

Oh, but wait! I forgot to mention that according to http://www.nytkampfly.dk (site that covers the new fighter competition), they where all "influenced" by Boeing.

Sad to see former RDAF colleagues prostituting them selves.

At least I know that the guys over at the New Fighter Program Office have made an unbiassed comparison which the decision makers will get.

http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/7463


This!

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 19:28
by XanderCrews
mk82 wrote:
guy@rdaf.dk wrote:
joost wrote:Heyhey, chewing herring is our (Dutch) habit! :D


No!!! Yours is chewing frikadellen and croquetten.....


Regarding the 3 danish "Fighter Pilots", and in prioritized order from the most experienced and down:

1) Niels Gunnar Sørensen flew 1.000 hours on the F-16 between the years 1980-84 (so really current experience.....)
2) Ole Ryberg only flew 15 hours in the F-16 before being transferred to another job (thats what getting washed out was called at the time)
3) Michael Huusom flew the F-100 until 1984 (so also a really really current "Fighter" experience)

Need I say more?

Oh, but wait! I forgot to mention that according to http://www.nytkampfly.dk (site that covers the new fighter competition), they where all "influenced" by Boeing.

Sad to see former RDAF colleagues prostituting them selves.

At least I know that the guys over at the New Fighter Program Office have made an unbiassed comparison which the decision makers will get.

http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/7463


This!


hats off to Mk82 who spotted the very bizarre contradictions early on

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 19:46
by guy@rdaf.dk
arrow-nautics wrote:
guy@rdaf.dk wrote:No!!! Yours is chewing frikadellen and croquetten.....
Guy@rdaf.dk, don't take it too personally. We Canuckleheads get the razzing too, what with our clubbing of seals, eating whale blubber & poutine munching :devil:

Denmark & Canada have this in common, neither of us can figure out our F-35's from our arses :devil:


Poutine??? You take three things that work fine on their own (fries, cheese and gravy), mix them all up and get what I think is even more gross than whale blubber.

Tried Poutine once during my pilot training in Moose Jaw. Some french-canadian class mate of mine told me it was pretty awesome. Stopped trusting french-canadians after that episode......

Drinking Canadian Rye on the other hand is a total different story :-)

PS. Hans Island belongs to us!!!

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 20:06
by spazsinbad
Heheh. We are 'happy little Vegemites' in OzLand


Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 21:30
by guy@rdaf.dk
[quote="spazsinbad"]Heheh. We are 'happy little Vegemites' in OzLand

At least Vegemite is made out of beer :thumb:

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 21:54
by spazsinbad
:devil: SO THAT IS MY PROBLEM!? :doh: :mrgreen: WedgieMite is Wuvverwee... :drool: :shock: :roll: HOPS eh. 8)

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2015, 12:21
by mk82
Xandercrews: " hats off to Mk82 who spotted the very bizarre contradictions early on"

Thanks Xandercrews :mrgreen: . The contradictions were hilarious in some ways :mrgreen: !

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2015, 18:35
by archeman
arrow-nautics wrote:
guy@rdaf.dk wrote:No!!! Yours is chewing frikadellen and croquetten.....
Guy@rdaf.dk, don't take it too personally. We Canuckleheads get the razzing too, what with our clubbing of seals, eating whale blubber & poutine munching :devil:



I'm OK with all of it....except that poutine part. Unforgivable. :wink:

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2015, 01:25
by m
Will the Danes go the F18 or the Typhoon?
Reasons why not:
1. They are in the JSF project. Leaving the project would mean loosing what has been invested by the Danes.
This has been invested by the Dutch. Leaving will be more expensive then staying in.

2. Studies from some years ago by the Danes mention the importance of Norwegian and Dutch decisions.
Cooperation with these partners, as with the EPAF F16, is highly important for the Danes, concerning operational costs, training, spares, weapons, updateas etc. etc.

3. Flying the F18, as the only Defence Force in Europe, is in no way posssible for the Danes.
As well a reason why the Gripen is not a jet type for the Danes. The Danes do pretty well on missions as for instance now in Iraq. In fact they flew even a little more airstrikes than Austalia did (total airstrikes, till aug 20).

Flying with a Gripen means no cooperation and assistance from other users, in particulair the US. Groundequipment, spares etc.
With the Swedes on a mission? Ones on a mission, Lybia, reconnaisance. After some time the Swedish Airforce came into trouble. It appeared hardly possible to continue such a mission.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2015, 00:46
by tritonprime
"Pratt & Whitney, Multicut sign agreement for F135 components"
Precision component manufacturer located in Vildjberg, Denmark, to manufacture engine components for F-35 aircraft.
November 3, 2015 Manufacturing Group

Source:
https://www.onlineamd.com/article/pratt ... nts-110315

Vildjberg, Denmark – Pratt & Whitney, a United Technologies Corp. company, has awarded a contract to Multicut A/S, a precision component manufacturer located in Vildjberg, Denmark, to manufacture F135 engine components. The F135 engine is the propulsion system for the fifth generation F-35 Lightning II aircraft.

This 10-year long term procurement agreement signals the beginning of a relationship between Pratt & Whitney and Multicut and positions Multicut well for follow-on F135 opportunities of increasing value.

"This award reaffirms Pratt & Whitney's commitment to F135 engine industrial participation in Denmark," said Bennett Croswell, president, Pratt & Whitney Military Engines. "Multicut competed globally and was selected as the best value supplier of these engine components, and will play a valuable role in our global supply chain for the F135 engine."

"We are delighted to have earned the trust of Pratt & Whitney to manufacture and deliver these key components for the F135 engine," said Lars Rasmussen, chief executive officer, Multicut Global. "Our business is focused on delivering high-quality products at competitive prices. Our contribution to the F135 engine helps ensure jobs and technology know-how remain an essential part of our local industry and a key support to the needs of Danish defense."

Should it be selected, the F-35 will replace Denmark's aging F-16 aircraft with an affordable, sustainable, and highly capable fifth-generation aircraft. The F-35 program includes partners from nine countries – Australia, Italy, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States – as well as three foreign military sales customers – Israel, Japan, and South Korea

Multicut A/S has a modern factory delivering complex machined parts and subassemblies. It uses state-of-the-art production equipment in its lean manufacturing facility – including 9-axis mill-turn machine tools, as well as 5-axis vertical and 4-axis horizontal computer numerical controlled machines networked with robotic material handling systems.
Source: Pratt & Whitney

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2015, 11:21
by popcorn
More carrots for Multicut.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 447437846/

Danish firm to produce aluminum parts for F-35
VILDBJERG, Denmark, Nov. 13 (UPI) -- Multicut A/S of Denmark has been notified by Lockheed Martin that it's to be contracted to make aluminum machined parts for F-35 fighters.

Under the contract to be issued, the Danish company will produce items such as brackets and fittings for the F-35 for an initial period of three years.

"Denmark continues to benefit from participating in the F-35 program, and this contract award with Multicut reaffirms Lockheed Martin's commitment to grow the industrial participation program with Danish companies of all sizes," Jack Crisler, Lockheed Martin F-35 vice president, said at a ceremony at Multicut in Vildbjerg.

More

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2015, 13:41
by spazsinbad
Milestones Close For Denmark And Belgium Fighter Contests
18 Nov 2015 Bill Sweetman

"LONDON—Denmark’s government is expected to recommend the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in December as the replacement for the F-16, according to industry executives attending the Defense IQ International Fighter Conference....

...The Danish recommendation is not a surprise, European executives say, because the nation was previously a JSF partner and the air force has longstanding ties to the U.S. Air Force. (Saab had previously pulled out of the contest, leaving Eurofighter and the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet as the only challengers to JSF.) However, it is expected to spark a public debate over the costs and risk associated with the JSF, the number of aircraft that Denmark can afford, and the balance between air-to-ground and air-to-air missions in the future.... [& BillyBobBoy will be there with sparklers]

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/milesto ... r-contests

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2015, 15:23
by popcorn
By all means let the Danes do a fair cost comparison F-35 vs Typhoon vs F-18SH if they must...

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2015, 16:52
by selvagor
They can in fact do a fair comparaison with some imaginary number for the F-35. As the F-35 square cost is less than zero, it will be less than any other plane cost !

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2015, 16:57
by SpudmanWP
selvagor wrote:They can in fact do a fair comparaison with some imaginary number for the F-35. As the F-35 square cost is less than zero, it will be less than any other plane cost !



If we used your logic then no plane would ever be improved, developed, etc.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2015, 21:19
by krorvik
SpudmanWP wrote:
selvagor wrote:They can in fact do a fair comparaison with some imaginary number for the F-35. As the F-35 square cost is less than zero, it will be less than any other plane cost !



If we used your logic then no plane would ever be improved, developed, etc.


Can't fault his imagination though...

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2015, 21:30
by optimist
spazsinbad wrote:
Milestones Close For Denmark And Belgium Fighter Contests
18 Nov 2015 Bill Sweetman

"LONDON—Denmark’s government is expected to recommend the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in December as the replacement for the F-16, according to industry executives attending the Defense IQ International Fighter Conference....

...The Danish recommendation is not a surprise, European executives say, because the nation was previously a JSF partner and the air force has longstanding ties to the U.S. Air Force. (Saab had previously pulled out of the contest, leaving Eurofighter and the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet as the only challengers to JSF.) However, it is expected to spark a public debate over the costs and risk associated with the JSF, the number of aircraft that Denmark can afford, and the balance between air-to-ground and air-to-air missions in the future.... [& BillyBobBoy will be there with sparklers]

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/milesto ... r-contests

For "don't say anything bad against Boeing, bill' That article is fireworks for the F-35.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2015, 22:16
by tritonprime
"Terma lands contract with BAE Systems potentially worth 1.6 billion kroner"
Co-operation between Danes and Brits on F-35 fighter jet looks set to continue
September 18th, 2015 5:43 pm| by Philip Tees

Source:
http://cphpost.dk/news/business/terma-l ... roner.html

The Danish aerospace company Terma has signed a contract, potentially worth 1.6 billion kroner over the next 23 years, with the British multinational BAE Systems to continue manufacturing components of the F-35 Lightening II aircraft.

The new agreement will extend collaboration between the two companies, whereby Terma delivers advanced composite structural parts for the tails of the aircraft. Paul Burns, the F-35 global procurement and supply chain director at BAE Systems, expressed satisfaction with the companies’ continued co-operation.

“We are delighted to sign this agreement with Terma. We have been working together with Terma for over 10 years and have developed a strong relationship that is delivering real benefits to both companies and the F-35 program,” he said.

“It is through agreements such as this, with organisations like Terma, that will help BAE Systems meet our ‘Blueprint for Affordability’ commitments on the program.”

Vote of confidence
Jens Maaløe, the CEO of Terma, takes the agreement as a vote of confidence.

“It is strong evidence of Terma’s present and future position on the F-35 program and it shows how collaboration can benefit Terma, Danish industry and the F-35 program as a whole,” he said.

“Terma has established a solid and reliable technology base for our future involvement in the program. At present, Terma is preparing for further investment in technology and production facilities,” said Maaløe.

However, parts of the agreement are out of Terma’s direct control and depend on Denmark choosing the F-35 to replace its F-16s. The other candidates are the Eurofighter and the American F-18 Super Hornet.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2015, 00:34
by popcorn
krorvik wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
selvagor wrote:They can in fact do a fair comparaison with some imaginary number for the F-35. As the F-35 square cost is less than zero, it will be less than any other plane cost !



If we used your logic then no plane would ever be improved, developed, etc.


Can't fault his imagination though...

He can't accept that the French apple-of-his-eye doesn't even get to go to the ball. Surely Dassault can offer a Denmarkized Rafale that will be cheaper and better solution?

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2015, 01:04
by cosmicdwarf
popcorn wrote:He can't accept that the French apple-of-his-eye doesn't even get to go to the ball. Surely Dassault can offer a Denmarkized Rafale that will be cheaper and better solution?

Does it come with an engine?

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2015, 02:42
by cantaz
cosmicdwarf wrote:Does it come with an engine?


Just ONE. :mrgreen:

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2015, 09:52
by geforcerfx
cantaz wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote:Does it come with an engine?


Just ONE. :mrgreen:


Think of the cost savings, half the fuel burn, and only half the engine maintenance, not to mention a nice reduction in empty weight to pad the paper stats. :D

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2015, 00:46
by popcorn
selvagor wrote:
popcorn wrote:He can't accept that the French apple-of-his-eye doesn't even get to go to the ball. Surely Dassault can offer a Denmarkized Rafale that will be cheaper and better solution?
You're right and a sweded F-35 will be even cheaper.

The Swedish Princess isn't going to the dance either, just like your French darling. :doh:

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2015, 05:40
by XanderCrews
selvagor wrote:
popcorn wrote:He can't accept that the French apple-of-his-eye doesn't even get to go to the ball. Surely Dassault can offer a Denmarkized Rafale that will be cheaper and better solution?
You're right and a sweded F-35 will be even cheaper.


The majority of swedish equipment is imported. They are not magic and even they know this.

The gripen is cheap because its basically a trainer class aircraft built to fight. F-5 like basically.

If gripen was as amazing as the internet thinks their sales would be through the roof, and the Swedish economy would hinge around revolutionizing avaition, especially the civil side

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2015, 00:49
by zerion
Denmark Further Postpones Fighter Selection Until 2016

Christensen has told the Parliamentary Defense Committee (PDC) there will be no announcement on aircraft selection until all funding issues have been resolved and the government finalizes a finance plan.

This Danish government is set to announce a selection in the first quarter of 2016...

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /76729290/

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2016, 00:22
by spazsinbad
Long convoluted article best read at source:
Replacing Denmark's Aging F-16s Could Place Strain on Defense Budget
22 Jan 2016 Gerard O'Dwyer

"HELSINKI — The significant investment planned by Denmark to replace the Danish Air Force’s (DAF) ageing F-16s is raising concerns both domestically and within NATO that the capital-heavy program may place a major drain on the military’s future core budgets.

Based on current estimates, the fighter replacement program is likely to cost Denmark between US $3 billion and US $4.5 billion, depending on the number of aircraft eventually purchased.

Moreover, the Danish government will need to budget for additional associated expenditures of between $10 billion to $13 billion to cover operational and maintenance costs over the aircraft’s intended 30-40 year lifespan.

Denmark sought bids on 24, 30 and 36 aircraft. These numbers are substantially lower than Denmark’s initial ambition to acquire up to 48 aircraft at the outset of the acquisition program in 2005. The DAF’s front-line fighter fleet currently has 30 operational F-16s....

...Denmark’s New Fighter Program Office (NFPO), which operates under the MoD, is expected to complete all components in its final evaluation of candidate aircraft by the end of January 2016.

The MoD is set to present a recommendation, based on the NFPO’s candidate aircraft evaluation report, to the Cabinet by the end of the first half of 2016. This could potentially happen as soon as March or April.

The aircraft recommendation stage will be followed by a public debate, which will also trigger political cross-party discussions around the aircraft selection and the government’s project financing plan.

The FRP has experienced five separate delays under five difference defense ministers since the project was launched in August 2005. The short list of candidate aircraft in the competition includes the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Boeing F-18F Super Hornet and the F-35A Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /79169716/

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2016, 07:42
by spazsinbad
Lots of political argybargy in this report that I cannot possibly understand - however it may mean something to some one.
Possible Delays Loom for Danish Fighter Buy
17 Mar 2016 Gerard O’Dwyer

BEST READ AT SOURCE

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /81939168/

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2016, 11:43
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Lots of political argybargy in this report that I cannot possibly understand - however it may mean something to some one.
Possible Delays Loom for Danish Fighter Buy
17 Mar 2016 Gerard O’Dwyer

BEST READ AT SOURCE

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /81939168/



Lol once again boeing is on the wrong end of a government deciding to play games. If the other option is the typhoon, it's pretty academic what's going to happen

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2016, 18:11
by krorvik
Norwegian klassekampen today has an article claiming that the danes are indeed going for the F-35 - a report handed to the defense minister says the F-35 is better in combat, and has lower maintenance and life cycle costs. Allied cooperation is also mentioned as a driving factor.

Source in norwegian: http://www.klassekampen.no/article/2016 ... /160429898

The article is also full of factual errors, but anyway, giggle translation:

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... F160429898

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2016, 21:08
by XanderCrews
Wow thank you for the post.

Got some laughs out of the translation

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2016, 23:36
by popcorn
Maybe Trudeau will get a clue?

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2016, 04:44
by cosmicdwarf
popcorn wrote:Maybe Trudeau will get a clue?

I think he already has. It's the money and political will to go more into debt for military spending he's missing.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2016, 17:12
by magitsu
The Danish radio that broke the news has some interesting data. Supposedly 30 year lifetime cost for 28 is 80 to 100 billion kronor (13-15 Bn USD).
Unusually, parties will decide not only the number of aircraft to be purchased and what they should cost, but also the choice of type and, most importantly, the financing of the new fighter, which is expected to cost between 80 and 100 billion over 30 years. It can not be excluded that politicians end up choosing a different fighter and especially F18 aircraft still have a chance.

http://www.radio24syv.dk/udvalgte-nyhed ... pfly-test/

Sounds rather affordable compared to the old Norwegian estimate for 51 from 2011. Which didn't include 10 Bn purchase price.
RAdm Arne Røksund: The life cycle costs will be, I think, about—this is not public yet, so I have to be careful—$40 billion U.S. over 30 years. So that's life cycle costs over 30 years, all included

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... Id=5272974

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2016, 18:11
by XanderCrews
Big picture: The issue with the super hornet is that it's near term. If a country needs an airplane quickly (like AUS after the F-111) buy super hornets. Its even more near term with the factory being close to done. If there is no rush, the F-35 is the better long term solution in every way, including the fact that it's rated for 8,000 hours and SH is 6,000.

So although the internet encourages knee jerk reactions and "buy it now it's cheaper!"governments are looking long term so thr super hornet continues to not sell outside the US with one exception.

Big picture. Hell if Denmark bought the super hornet they would be the sole operator in all of europe. Not helpful

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 17:27
by lamoey
F-35 Procurement Process Begins For Denmark

Tony Osborne | Aviation Week & Space Technology

The Danish defense ministry has begun the process of purchasing its F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

Government publications published on Nov. 16 reveal the defense ministry has requested 16.374 billion Danish Krones ($2.62 billion) to buy the 27 F-35As, engines, four simulators and a pool purchase of spares, support equipment, modification work and upgrades up to 2026.

The Danish purchase will take place in phases, with a contract and order for 10 aircraft expected to be signed in 2018. Four of the aircraft will be delivered in 2021, and six in 2022. The purchase of the remaining 17 aircraft will be carried out through a “series of subsequent payments,” through 2027. The Danish aircraft will be initially delivered to Luke AFB, Arizona, to support initial pilot training; other nations operating F-35s have followed the same procedure. The aircraft will then be transferred in stages to the Danish air base at Skrydstrup, near the German border, which will become Denmark’s main F-35 operating base in 2022.

The documents state that although all the Danish F-35s will be based in-country from 2022, “there may be a need for an additional training flight in the U.S.”

Copenhagen says its aircraft will be delivered in two configurations: The first 10 will be delivered in Technology Refresh 2 (TR-2), while the remaining 17 will arrive in TR-3, which will bring several changes to the cockpit. Several companies, including Elbit and Harris, have already declared their involvement in these upgrade packages. The first 10 aircraft will be upgraded to TR-3 standard later.

Work to prepare the Skrydstrup airbase for the F-35 is expected to cost around 650 million Krone, although the documents say this does not cover contingency work in case of crisis and war, which would mean that additional investments might be needed. Permission to begin construction is expected in 2019.

Denmark’s 27 F-35s will replace a roughly 48-strong fleet of F-16 Fighting Falcons, which have been upgraded to Mid-Life Update standard. The F-16s will be used for national defense tasks until 2023. In 2024, F-16 and F-35 operations will be briefly concurrent until the F-35 assumes the role entirely in 2025. Copenhagen will not be able to perform any international missions with its fighters in 2022-27 as the air force transitions between the two types, although the F-35 could perform “limited international operations” beginning in 2025 if needed.

Copenhagen says the costs associated with the program are uncertain, but the defense ministry estimates it will take 57 billion Krone to maintain the fleet up to 2049. This is based on each aircraft being flown around 250 hr. per year. The documents state that the number of pilots now flying the F-16 will be trimmed to 62 from 70 to “contribute to a smoother transition from the F-16 pilot structure to the F-35 pilot structure.”

Based on those numbers, each Danish pilot can expect to fly around 110 hr. per year. Aircraft availability is expected to be around 72%, which the documents say should be possible thanks to the increased reliability seen in later production series model aircraft.

The defense ministry says its assumptions are “ambitious, but realistic” and that the capacity built into the program will be able to meet Copenhagen’s political needs. However, a need for additional aircraft is not ruled out.

The documentation was released just weeks after the Rigsrevisionen, the country’s national audit office, questioned whether the 27 F-35s would be capable of delivering all the required tasks. The report, published at the beginning of November, said that assumptions associated with flying hours may lead to underestimates in the costs allocated to cover risks, which it says could lead to increased life-cycle costs.


http://www.aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/f-35-procurement-process-begins-Denmark

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 23:06
by spazsinbad
IF the number of hours per year refers to the F-35 pilot hours then that is quite reasonable IF the Danskmen intend to also have an equivalent number of hours+ in the FMS Full Mission Simulators - as the US, UK and Oz intend at moment - AFAIK.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2018, 01:38
by spazsinbad
Terma announces teaming for new F-35 avionics test centre
13 Mar 2018 Beth Stevenson

"Terma and Scandinavian Avionics have teamed to form an avionics test centre in Denmark to offer support for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in Europe. Avionics Test Center Denmark will combine the maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) experience of Scandinavian Avionics with the electronic and software experience of Terma to provide test and repair of the avionics on board the fighter.

“In order to provide best value to the F-35 programme, Terma and Scandinavian Avionics decided to team up to form Avionics Test Center Denmark,” Jens Maaløe, president and CEO of Terma, says. “We both aim to enhance and grow our MRO capabilities towards the F-35 programme with specific focus on the test and repair of F-35 avionics.”

Source: http://www.janes.com/article/78549/term ... est-centre

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2018, 14:33
by spazsinbad
No more than this for me....
Exchange Rates Nudge F-35 Price Down For Denmark
14 Mar 2018 Tony Osborne

"LONDON—Favorable foreign exchange rates are helping push down the price of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for Denmark, the Danish government has ..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/exc ... wn-denmark

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2018, 22:34
by dandy5
why do they recommend to buy it now?

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2018, 14:06
by loke
Boeing lost their case:

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Boeing (BA.N) lost a lawsuit against Denmark on Friday which related to the Danish government’s decision to buy Lockheed Martin’s (LMT.N) F-35 Lightning II combat jets in preference to Boeing’s F/A 18 Super Hornets.

“Boeing initiated this legal action to gain a better understanding of the evaluation process, in which we believe the Ministry made a number of critical errors and omissions in its evaluation,” Boeing said in a statement on Friday.

Denmark’s defense ministry had denied Boeing access because the U.S. company had not specified which documents it wanted to see, and that it would too large a task to find all documents since preparations for the order began in 2005.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN1GZ295

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 15:32
by spazsinbad
Denmark’s air chief on standing up the F-35 and dealing with Russia
14 Jun 2018 Aaron Mehta

"COPENHAGEN, Denmark ― Denmark’s government announced its intent to buy 27 F-35A joint strike fighters in June 2016. The aircraft were meant to become the backbone of the Danish Air Force for years to come. But standing up the jets with a relatively small force, while taking part in operations around the globe, has created a headache for planners in Copenhagen.

Maj. Gen. Anders Rex, Denmark’s chief of the air staff, is in charge of making that transition work. During a recent visit to Copenhagen, Rex sat down with Defense News to explain how that transition will happen and describe the country’s interaction with Russia in recent years.

Q: As Denmark stands up the F-35 and stands down the F-16, the government has a plan for a three-year window, during which it will not take part in foreign operations. What is the thinking there? Does that impact your ability to take part in exercises?... [GOOD INTERVIEW BEST READ AT SOURCE]

Q: There is a potential issue for your service, with both pilots and maintainers getting older. You expect the average pilot age to be 45 by the time the F-35 is up and running. How do you plan to handle that?

A: We will try to work the demography issue to the best of our ability within the resources we have. That’s hard work because we need to recruit, we need to train ― and especially for the pilots, it’s a lot more expensive to train young, inexperienced, non-fast-jet pilots on the F-35 than it is to train an experienced fast-jet pilot on the F-35. And so we are working hard to make the best of the resources that we have and try to make it work to our advantage.

It’s not a disadvantage to have experienced pilots. It’s never a disadvantage to have pilots. Not that I know the exact ratio or whatnot, [but] I would say about half my pilots have more than 2,000 hours in the F-16. That is extraordinary. And so they still have a lot to give as far as the F-35. So we will have to make that work to our advantage. Same for the maintainers. A lot of, let’s say experienced, maintainers ― but they’ve worked 20, 30, some up to 40 years on fast jets. So they know a lot about the culture, they know a lot about the flight safety, the technical issues. And I think we can get a lot by having them being there, teaching the young guys some of the virtues of handling fast jets...."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-pr ... th-russia/

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2020, 19:00
by glendora
Lockheed Martin starts production of Denmark’s first F-35 aircraft

28 JANUARY 2020
Lockheed Martin has started the production of Denmark’s first F-35 fighter aircraft at its plant located in Fort Worth, Texas, US.

The front fuselage for the aircraft, which has arrived on the production line at the plant, will contain the cockpit.

Slated for completion by the end of this year, the F-35 aircraft will arrive at Luke Air Force Base next year.

There the fighter aircraft will be included in the training for the Royal Danish Air Force.

The interns will be in Fort Worth until June this year as part of a special training programme sponsored by Terma.

Denmark joined the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme in 2002 during the system development and demonstration phase and has influenced technical elements of the aircraft. It confirmed plans to procure 27 F-35As in June 2016...

Source: https://www.airforce-technology.com/new ... -aircraft/

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2020, 12:16
by spazsinbad
Denmark begins F-35 preparations
12 Jun 2020 Gareth Jennings

"Denmark has begun preparations for receiving its first Lockheed Martin F-35A Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) combat aircraft, with the country’s parliament approving construction of facilities and the Royal Danish Air Force (RDAF) revealing the national livery to adorn the jets.

With the RDAF set to receive the first of its 27-contracted F-35As in 2021, the Danish parliament on 11 June approved legislation to build dedicated facilities at Skveststrup Flyvestation in Southern Jutland ahead of the commencement of type-operations there in 2023.

“With the Folketing’s [Danish Parliament’s] adoption of the Civil Aviation Administration Skrydstrup Act today, construction of the complex to house the next aircraft can begin. First spades will be taken on Monday [15 June] by, among others, Minister of Defence Trine Bramsen and Bjørn Bisserup, Defense Secretary,” the country’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced.

As noted by the MoD, as well as instigating construction work of new F-35 facilities, the adoption of the Civil Aviation Administration Skrydstrup Act activates a compensation scheme for local residents set to be affected by future F-35 aircraft noise in the area. “A broad political majority consisting of the Left, Conservatives, the Danish People’s Party, the Liberal Alliance, the Radical Left, and the Social Democracy is behind the political agreement to compensate approximately 1,600 homes in the area of the additional noise the F-35 aircraft brings in comparison to the current F-16,” the MoD said...."

Source: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... eparations

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2020, 13:40
by hythelday
First Danish F-35 takes shape
By George Allison, August 12, 2020

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-d ... kes-shape/

The aircraft, with tail number L-001, recently arrived at the Electronic Mate and Alignment Station.
Lockheed Martin say that Electronic Mate and Alignment Station (EMAS) is an electronic compatibility and assembly system designed to perform the final assembly of the front, center and rear of the F-35, as well as the wing module.
[...]
The first Danish F-35 fighter jets will continue to stay in the USA until 2023 before heading to Skrydstrup Air Base in Denmark.

Re: Denmark reconsidering JSF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2020, 09:00
by spazsinbad
First F-35A for Denmark Progressing Towards Delivery
21 Oct 2020 LM PR

"The first Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II for the Royal Danish Air Force is standing with weight on wheels for the first time, a significant milestone for the jet as it moves down the production line at Lockheed Martin’s mile-long assembly plant in Fort Worth, Texas.

Denmark’s first F-35, known as AP-1, was lifted by an overhead crane on September 15 from an electronic mate and alignment station where its forward and rear fuselage sections were joined to the wing-center fuselage assembly. The aircraft will now travel to final assembly, where its control surfaces will be added, along with final systems and engine installation.

AP-1 is due to roll out of the factory in early 2021 and will initially be based at Luke AFB, Arizona, where they will be part of the training of Danish pilots. The reception of the F-35 aircrafts in the Air Force will be completed over a period of six years from 2021 to 2026."

Photo: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... __main.jpg

Source: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/first-f ... s-delivery