Denmark reconsidering JSF?

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

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post02 Sep 2013, 03:43

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.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post02 Sep 2013, 03:44

Deleted
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post02 Sep 2013, 06:47

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??
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post02 Sep 2013, 07:47

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.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post02 Sep 2013, 09:05

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.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post02 Sep 2013, 09:13

^^ 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.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post02 Sep 2013, 09:36

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.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post02 Sep 2013, 12:41

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.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 878
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post03 Sep 2013, 01:02

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.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post03 Sep 2013, 02:29

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.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post03 Sep 2013, 06:03

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.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post03 Sep 2013, 06:48

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.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post03 Sep 2013, 07:38

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.
Last edited by geogen on 03 Sep 2013, 07:41, edited 1 time in total.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6243
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 Sep 2013, 07:40

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?
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post03 Sep 2013, 07:54

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.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests