Denmark reconsidering JSF?

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

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6247
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 Sep 2013, 08:16

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.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post03 Sep 2013, 17:46

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.
Offline

geogen

Banned

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

Unread post04 Sep 2013, 01:39

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24120
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Sep 2013, 01:53

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
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post04 Sep 2013, 02:14

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.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post04 Sep 2013, 02:18

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.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post04 Sep 2013, 02:34

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.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post04 Sep 2013, 08:49

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.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7718
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post13 Sep 2013, 23:44

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.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24120
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Sep 2013, 23:49

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
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7718
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post13 Sep 2013, 23:49

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.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24120
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Sep 2013, 23:56

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
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7718
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post14 Sep 2013, 02:52

LOL Spaz.. now we're replicating posts in tandem :D
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post14 Sep 2013, 07:43

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.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24120
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Apr 2014, 21:13

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
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests