Type selection of Denmark's new fighter aircraft - Report

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

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1033
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post06 Mar 2017, 21:17

ricnunes wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Win friends/influence people


I don't know if I fully understood your post but suing someone (this case a country) because it didn't buy the clearly inferior aircraft doesn't seem to me a way to win any friends the only influence it can get over people would be a "negative" one.


I believe you prove XanderCrews' point, as I am fairly certain his post was intended in jest or sarcastic tone.
Take an F-16, stir in a little A-7, bake, then sprinkle on a generous helping of F-117. What do you get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 709
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Mar 2017, 12:09

steve2267 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Win friends/influence people


I don't know if I fully understood your post but suing someone (this case a country) because it didn't buy the clearly inferior aircraft doesn't seem to me a way to win any friends the only influence it can get over people would be a "negative" one.


I believe you prove XanderCrews' point, as I am fairly certain his post was intended in jest or sarcastic tone.



Yes, I also though the same as you (that XanderCrews was being sarcastic) so I was just trying to be sure :wink:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19220
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Mar 2017, 16:02

Denmark may respond to Boeing lawsuit in April
13 Mar 2017 Gerard O’Dwyer

"HELSINKI — Denmark’s Office of Attorney General is expected to unveil a formal legal defense position in April or May in response to a lawsuit filed by Boeing that essentially questions the fairness and transparency of Denmark’s fighter selection process....

... the government’s defense strategy and legal input is being prepared in consultation with the ministries of Defence, Justice and Finance. Denmark plans to also present reasons for nondisclosure of selection process documents sought by Boeing. It is anticipated that the Danish government’s core arguments against the lawsuit will be to explain the criteria under which the fighter selection process was run and defend the overall transparency aspect of the competition.

Moreover, the Danish MoD will argue that it could not comply with certain individual petitions by Boeing for information because the requests made were either nonspecific or "too wide-ranging" in nature. Part of Denmark’s defense strategy will be to block access by Boeing to technical reports and records dealing with the evaluations conducted on the various competing candidate aircraft on the grounds that such documents fall under Denmark’s classified data laws.

Furthermore, Denmark is expected to argue that Boeing’s Super Hornet fell short of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 offering under the Fighter Replacement Program’s so-called four primary assessment pillars: strategic, military, economic and industrial....

...Denmark’s MoD has already denied Boeing’s requests for access to all materials relevant to the decision-making process. The MoD has only released a small number of documents to Boeing despite regular formal requests for greater access that were lodged by the company in the past six months."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/den ... t-in-april
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1033
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post13 Mar 2017, 20:04

Back in the late 1980's / early 1990's, (then) Martin Marietta was attempting to penetrate the commercial launch vehicle market with the Commercial Titan launch vehicle, a commercial version of a Titan 34D. It flew four times. One of those missions failed (or had a partial failure). As I recall, MM absolved itself of the failure, stating that they had met the contract requirements when the engines lit on the launch pad. I think the customer sued, and MM counter-sued the customer. And thus ended the Commercial Titan program -- what customer wanted to fly on that vehicle if the manufacturer was going to sue you if the vehicle failed? (Also, as I recall, the failure was traced to a wiring harness being installed incorrectly. Except that the technician had wired the harnesses correctly per the wiring diagrams given him. It was just that the wiring diagrams were incorrect. Oops. This is all from 25+ yr memory, so take it with a grain of salt, but I believe my "retelling" is correct.)

Tell me again why anyone is going to want to purchase the F-18 SHornet from Boeing if Boeing is going to sue them if Boeing doesn't get it's way? Or why Boeing will be permitted to even bid if this is going to be their modus operandi? "Oh, we lost. Sue the customer! They obviously don't know what they are doing!"
Take an F-16, stir in a little A-7, bake, then sprinkle on a generous helping of F-117. What do you get? An F-35.
Offline

bojack_horseman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2016, 19:51
  • Location: Ireland

Unread post03 Nov 2017, 13:17

You will notice a bit of glee from the basement media regarding a report from the Danish National Audit office & the F-35.

This was reported by the Kremlin's Ministry of Truth here:

https://sputniknews.com/military/201711 ... hter-jets/

However Ivan is being liberal with the truth.

The Danish NAO's brief summary report is here.
They are helpful in their translations.

http://uk.rigsrevisionen.dk/media/2104702/2-2017.pdf

If you read it you will see that it isn't actually a problem with the F-35 itself.
The Danish NAO are essentially unsure whether the Defence Ministry were right in their assumptions with regard to the amount of flight hours they are budgeting for over the planes lifespan.

Essentially the NAO worry that the aircraft will be busier than the Brass are saying and this will obviously cost more.
They are worried that the declared number of aircraft and hours of usage will be insufficient and therefore carry a risk.

A minor scolding telling the DefMin that they should allow for more usage than the barest of minimum to cover contingency risk

It makes absolutely no indication that the F-35 is insufficient.... rather that they might be busier than anticipated!
Perhaps Denmark will order more!

Ivan media doing what Ivan media does.
Offline

viper12

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post03 Nov 2017, 13:37

bojack_horseman wrote:This was reported by the Kremlin's Ministry of Truth here:

https://sputniknews.com/military/201711 ... hter-jets/


I can't see what you did here, for I've obviously put everything in the memory hole. :twisted:
Offline

jakobs

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2015, 11:38

Unread post07 Nov 2017, 23:32

bojack_horseman wrote:Essentially the NAO worry that the aircraft will be busier than the Brass are saying and this will obviously cost more. They are worried that the declared number of aircraft and hours of usage will be insufficient and therefore carry a risk.


Of course the number is insufficient!

Danish politicians want to be able to patrol in the Baltic, bomb in the Middle East and also control danish airspace.
22 planes, and 5 in the US, simply isn't enough for that ambition IMO.
Offline
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 506
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post13 Nov 2017, 17:06

The danish "rigsrevisjonen" is just as thorough as the norwegian one - they can - and will - find such risks.

It's their job.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5069
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 Nov 2017, 17:45

Then Buy more F-35s.
Choose Crews
Offline

white_lightning35

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07

Unread post13 Nov 2017, 18:15

Or limit commitments, which is always the tempting choice. Perhaps buy more, but who wants to be the politician to do that?
Offline
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 506
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post13 Nov 2017, 18:41

XanderCrews wrote:Then Buy more F-35s.


Yup. Will fix one risk, and increase the other ;)
Online

juretrn

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 182
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09

Unread post13 Nov 2017, 19:45

XanderCrews wrote:Then Buy more F-35s.

Or buy Gripens. /s
I hear they're a bit like the Golf Mk. 2 Diesel of fighter world - not just practically free to fly, but actually actively bring you money back the more you fly them!
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19220
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Nov 2017, 17:14

Danish audit agency questions data for F-35 purchase
14 Nov 2017 Gerard O'Dwyer

"HELSINKI ― Denmark’s national audit agency, the Rigsrevisionen, has raised a series of optimization and efficiency questions regarding the government’s basis for deciding to select the F-35A Lightning II as the Royal Danish Air Force’s next-generation fighter.

The Danish government reached a decision in June 2016 to acquire 27 F-35A aircraft at a cost of $3.1 billion. The F-35As will replace the Air Forces’ F-16s. Denmark acquired 44 F-16AM and F-16BM fighters from General Dynamics in the 1980s. The number of actual operational aircraft is about 29.

The Rigsrevisionen operates as the Danish Parliament’s independent watchdog on major capital spending programs. The agency wants the government to explain how the Ministry of Defence’s final assessment accounted for risks associated with key assumptions in the decision; this includes the inherent risk that the Danish armed forces might be unable to deliver all the tasks required with the 27 F-35 combat aircraft ordered from Lockheed Martin....

...Significantly, the central thrust of the questions raised by the Rigsrevisionen are not directed at the F-35A’s operating capabilities or suitability per se, but target optimization and the capacity of the 27 aircraft to deliver the full-range of tasks as set out in the Danish government’s decision-making document linked to the purchase.

Although the MoD will take a close look at the auditor’s analysis and conclusions, the Danish government remains fully committed to proceeding with plans to acquire the F-35A, said Defence Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen. “We will examine the Rigsrevisionen’s calculations and pay attention to them. That said, I believe that our figures have a very solid basis. I cannot see how we cannot achieve them,” Frederiksen said.

The MoD’s core appraisal calculates that the F-35A will be able to complete 250 flight hours per year, and a higher number if the military is required to operate the aircraft in support of NATO or as part of other international missions....

...“Our study shows that the MoD’s calculation of the total number of flying hours for the 27 F-35s does not reflect potential shortcomings of the assumptions concerning average number of flying hours per year or the availability rate of the aircraft,” according to the report.

As a result, the auditor concludes “there is a risk that the requirement for flying hours has been under-estimated and the total number of flying hours over-estimated.” The report adds that the MoD may have also “under-estimated the costs allocated to cover risks which may increase the estimated life-cycle costs.”...

...“The original plan was to acquire 48 aircraft, but this was considered unaffordable within the framework of the more frugal Danish budgeting for public contracts. The proposed number was scaled down in stages to 27. It’s likely that the [Danish Air Force] will in coming years acquire a sufficient number of multirole drones to support its core F-35 fleet and give the force greater operational flexibility and strength,” Mundt [a political analyst based in The Hague, Netherlands] said.

The MoD has already signaled its intent to optimize the operational efficiency of F-35s by micromanaging flight hours and placing a greater prioritization on mission-specific deployments.

“If the [Rigsrevisionen’s] calculations are more accurate than the MoD’s own task-based flight hours assumptions, and 27 F-35s prove to be insufficient to meet all duties, then the main choices are to either purchase more aircraft or reduce flight hours,” Mundt said.... [PROBABLY BEST TO READ IT ALL AT SOURCE]

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/11 ... -purchase/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 709
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post14 Nov 2017, 21:51

My conclusion from spazsinbad's latest post/article is the following:

Danish Rigsrevisionen = US GAO


Or did I miss something in the article?? :wink:
Online

juretrn

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 182
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09

Unread post14 Nov 2017, 22:35

ricnunes wrote:My conclusion from spazsinbad's latest post/article is the following:

Danish Rigsrevisionen = US GAO


Or did I miss something in the article?? :wink:

Probably not;
but I think the conclusions drawn were somewhat obvious; 27 F-35s can't do the job of 48.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], sunstersun and 13 guests