Euros don't like the F-35 but like themselves

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11579
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Jun 2011, 22:33

I'll imagine that this LM F-35 brief PDF to Norway has matched the Norwegian requirements (from 2008):

Request for Binding Information Response to the
ROYAL NORWEGIAN MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Programme 7600 Future Combat Aircraft
Executive Summary – Part One [24 April 2008]

www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Temadokume ... I-svar.pdf (4.6Mb)


"Right System for Efficient, Affordable Operations
Whether providing national sovereign defence, supporting regional operations,
or participating in a NATO expeditionary role, the F-35 can perform a wide
range of missions with greater efficiencies and a higher degree of survivability
than legacy fighters. Long-range persistence, unprecedented situational
awareness, interoperability with allied forces, large inventory of internal and
external stores, and designed-in affordability and reliability keep the FCA
viable and affordable well into the 21st century. Our use of a Performance-
Based Logistics (PBL) approach and other innovative sustainment systems
enables life-cycle cost approximately 20% less than legacy aircraft.

The Right Solution To Meet National and International Commitments
As a unique symbol of Norway’s national sovereignty and national interests, the
5th generation F-35 plays a vital role in regional maritime operations enforcing
domestic and international law, contributing substantially to peaceful operations
within the Norwegian Economic Zone. It provides the capability of delivering a
measured response ranging from carrying out full combat operations to surveillance
(and fallout intelligence collection capabilities). Through its high degree of
interoperability with legacy and future systems, the F-35 easily participates with
others in the security of neighboring nations and governments. The continued
RNoAF participation in the multinational JSF program further extends and stabilizes
strategic cooperation with allies operating common technologies."
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

treebeard

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: 24 May 2010, 11:47
  • Location: NL

Unread post05 Jun 2011, 00:59

Scorpion82 wrote:The 2001 evaluation by the Dutch was a pure paper exercise conducted by a political institute rather than the RNLAF itself.

The 2001 evaluations were done by the Dutch Ministry of Defence in partnership with three research institutes specialised in the purchase, technical evaluation and development of combat aircraft and the related defence matters.
The institutes involved were TNO, NLR and NIVR, with the first two being autonomous and independent institutions.
The RNLAF has been favouring the JSF/F-35 before the question of replacing the F-16MLU even came up.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1002
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post05 Jun 2011, 05:51

Scorpion82 wrote:
shingen wrote:Yeah, obviously the F-35 couldn't win against the mighty Typhoon. It's always a stacked competition when the F-35 wins but a fair one when Typhoon wins.


A typical fanboy overreaction and quite predictable one as well. No one says the F-35 couldn't have won this deal on merit of the platform itself. But the reality is that everyone who selected the F-35 selected a paper plane on grounds of promises from the manufacturer and its political supporters. Whether these promises are kept or not is yet another question.

I don't think that any F-35 partner is going to switch to another solution, it would be stupid to invest hundred millions or even billions just to go another route and lose all the investment made.


You insinuate that there is something wrong with choosing a "paper plane" so riddle me this.

Was the Eurofighter fully developed and then fairly compared against other modern designs before it was selected by Germany, UK, Spain and Italy?

Was the Rafale fully developed and then tested in open competition against other modern fighters before France signed up for it?

What about the Gripen? Did SAAB fully develop it and did Sweden fully assess it in open competition before choosing it?

Of course not. All of these were development programs, ie: "paper planes" that were chosen by their respective launch customers before their development was completed...

Funny then that only the JSF is held to the standard that IT should be fully developed before anyone dare choose it...
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post05 Jun 2011, 06:21

Short memories around here…

Leaked US diplomatic cables reveal a concerted, multi-departmental American lobbying effort in 2008 to convince Norwegian policymakers to purchase F-35 fighter jets instead of a Swedish-made rival for fear rejecting the stealth aircraft could influence other countries.

The campaign was designed to talk up the F-35's capabilities in public while applying "forceful" pressure on Norwegian officials in private. At the same time, there was an apparent effort to influence the Norwegian decision by withholding a key component for the Swedish aircraft.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/12/wikileaks-shows-us-played-aesa.html
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/diplomats-pimping-planes-dirty-little-wikil
http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2010/12/wikileaks-cables-how-us-forced-norway.html

Completely above-board, no funny business going on here.

But don’t worry guys, you’re not as biased as that Sweetman bloke. You’re waaay more biased than that guy. :lol:
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 931
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post05 Jun 2011, 07:19

Weird, US diplomats doing stuff that is in the interest of the United States. Say it ain't so!
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post05 Jun 2011, 07:26

Scorpion82 wrote:
The F-35 is hardly a paper plane today, albeit it's still years away from delivering what the marketing brochures and power points are promoting since years.


Just like the Typhoon then :lol:

(Sorry, but that was just too easy) :wink:
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post05 Jun 2011, 07:31

Prinz_Eugn wrote:Weird, US diplomats doing stuff that is in the interest of the United States. Say it ain't so!


You must always remember it's only ever bad when its America that's trying to sell arms.
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post05 Jun 2011, 08:22

shep1978 wrote:
Prinz_Eugn wrote:Weird, US diplomats doing stuff that is in the interest of the United States. Say it ain't so!


You must always remember it's only ever bad when its America that's trying to sell arms.


Point is, JSF wasn't winning the comp. The US government had to slant the playing field and "influence" the referee to get a win.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post05 Jun 2011, 08:56

jeffb wrote:
shep1978 wrote:
Prinz_Eugn wrote:Weird, US diplomats doing stuff that is in the interest of the United States. Say it ain't so!


You must always remember it's only ever bad when its America that's trying to sell arms.


Point is, JSF wasn't winning the comp. The US government had to slant the playing field and "influence" the referee to get a win.


It’s ridiculous specially naming the US when there is a deal.
All countries/industries will do so, it does not concern aircraft industry only.
It will happen in every kind of industry.
Although we like to think not, even a very small business will do so in one way or another.

Example Saab; there has not been one single Gripen sold without a scandal.
South Africa, even Tutu came in action to get rid of Saab.
The Swedish had them tangled, so they were forced to buy the Gripen.

Hungary: It was clear the F16 would have been ordered.
At the day signing the deal, suddenly the Gripen was chosen.
In most countries Saab has been dealing there are investigations
Austria; Saab has been banned.

Is Saab to judge about this? No, this is behavior, trying to sell,
what all other contenders will do also.
Saab was just not that lucky as others were this came up concerning deals.
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post05 Jun 2011, 09:06

m wrote:
jeffb wrote:
shep1978 wrote:
Prinz_Eugn wrote:Weird, US diplomats doing stuff that is in the interest of the United States. Say it ain't so!


You must always remember it's only ever bad when its America that's trying to sell arms.


Point is, JSF wasn't winning the comp. The US government had to slant the playing field and "influence" the referee to get a win.


It’s ridiculous specially naming the US when there is a deal.
All countries/industries will do so, it does not concern aircraft industry only.
It will happen in every kind of industry.


As I said before, it's only bad when its America is trying to sell arms. It really is that basic.
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 931
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post05 Jun 2011, 09:19

jeffb wrote:Point is, JSF wasn't winning the comp. The US government had to slant the playing field and "influence" the referee to get a win.


That's not even the case according to the articles you posted. JSF was already winning, and the US decided to put more effort into getting the F-35 selected after the Gripen started gaining ground (which is significantly different from it "winning").

The Norwegians made their own decision after facing pressure and incentives from both sides, and those cables point out that the US was even surprised at how far they went in rejecting the Gripen.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post05 Jun 2011, 12:06

Scorpion82 wrote:
m wrote:Your statement, the evaluation by the Dutch and the Norwegians was fake, is the easy way.
If so, where is your prove of this?
I am very interested to hear.


As aforementioned the original Dutch evaluation did not even include the eventual customer, meaning the RNLAF. Whether the original evaluation as such was fair would require more detailed information. Anyway the selection was merely made on grounds of promises which can't be disputed.
By 2008 Holland had already invested quite some money and as you say yourself no Dutch government in power ever questioned the JSF purchase, only the opposition opposed to it and that's it. The renewed evaluation of the alternatives (Gripen NG) was merely meant to silence the opposition, it had never a serious chance of winning anyway and I'm quite certain that this was known.

Evaluating the NG? Not a single one is flying jet.
In that case the NG is more a paper plane then the f35 often being accused of.
Sweden did even not yet gave any approval for development of the NG.
What Saab came up with, was in no way possible.


The F-35 is hardly a paper plane today, albeit it's still years away from delivering what the marketing brochures and power points are promoting since years. Back then when the JSF partner nations lined up to join the JSF programme as level 1 to 3 partners the JSF was a paper plane that's a fact.

You are right that the Gripen NG is a paper plane even today, albeit it's fair to say that the Gripen Demo is already quite close to the proposed Gripen NG testing a lot of the planned elements and this development is funded by the Swedish. Thus you are not entirely right when you claim that this aircraft's development isn't funded and the risk entailed to the development of an upgraded derivative of a proven platform is certainly lower than that of an all new design. But at this point the risk of the F-35 is not that big anymore, whereas the Gripen NG is mainly at risk due the lack of customers thus far. If no customer is found for the NG Gripen prodution will come to an end rather soon. Individual elements would be integrated on existing Gripens in service during a MLU.

A NG will cost now at least $80 million, without knowing what development costs will be.
Offer Brazil: $6 billion/ 36 Gripen NG’s > US$166 million per Gripen (all in)
Offer Denmark: roughly the same price


Isolated quotation of figures isn't worth anything. Unless you have comparative figures with known details of what's included in that price. Everything else must be taken with a pinch of salt and it's unfortunately a very common problem these days.

Characteristics of the future NG are even not known.
When no NG is flying yet, what about promised timescale delivering the NG …..?


That's not entirely true as many characteristics has been published and a lot of stuff is already flying on board of the Gripen Demo.

Testing noise characteristics: Saab asked the Dutch more then €400.000 for testing!
Not that strange the Dutch refused (Info: letter min of Def)


Once again the question is what was included in that price. Testing isn't cheap and what are the comparative figures for the F-35? To be honest I don't expect an answer for the latter question.

@aceshigh

What are you talking about? The one thing we know about those offsets, is that there wasn’t any. The offsets that the Norwegians has gotten from the U.S, has been won after the decision to buy the F-35 was made. Saab offered the world by comparison. You’re right about EADS though.


Bingo there wasn't any for the F-35, but the European bidders were required to prepare offsets in advance (IIRC 30% of the purchase price).


In both Dutch evaluations double engined jets had no change.
They were/are to expensive to consider them as a replacement for the F16.
Only the F16 advanced, F35 and Gripen and the later on Gripen Ng
were serious contenders.

You are right a second evaluation strictly was useless, especially with this in mind:
A possible choice for Dutch participation in the EMD phase is therefore
a far-reaching decision, since this establishes the Netherlands virtually
on the subsequent purchase of the largely still to develop JSF.
(Letter min of Def. 2000, march 15)

Although, the second evaluation, asked for by M. of P., had to be done seriously.
It was audited by Rand, the evaluation would be a fair process.

Basically the evaluating process is/was not that different from the processes
in other countries.
There is a lot of cooperation with Norway and Italy (suppose also Denmark)

Concerning: The comparison with respect to quality focused on the concept of operations
for the following six generic multi-role missions:
(See letter min. of Defensive)

* One can presume these are not that much different from Norway (or Italy and Denmark)

The outcome of the second evaluation, F16 Advanced and Gripen NG were seen as
very good jets, but not as that more advanced then the Air Force is already flying with.
For the coming 30 or 40 years, these jets could not be seen as future jets.

A short coming of the Gripen NG, not enough space for coming updates.
The jet could not fulfil all of the characteristics, multiroles, what was asked for.
During exercises, Frisian Flag, with also Gripens, noticed was for instance, range
was too short.
Except for the F35, both contenders can’t operate in the future in a highly danger sam environment.
Sead is seen as a major capability, also because there is a great lack concerning
sead in Europe. The F35 can fulfil this role.

Dassault was offended and drew back the Rafale. Dassault either good have known
they had no change with a doubled engine.
As well as the F18 and was not offered for evaluation.
Beside the F18 is double engined, the jet does not fit in Dutch atomic shelters.
Replacing shelters would have cost a lot money extra.

The F35 was preferred by the Airforce, before evaluating the F35 as a replacement
for the F16.
Consider a Air Force knows best what they need. Either without lobbying, they
certainly would not get what they have in mind, needed to do the job.

With the F35 in mind they started lobbying with the Dutch Flying industry and
the Trade Unions, before evaluating/joining the F35 project.
Both, trade unions as well as Dutch flying industry, saw the F35 as a ideal project
for the Dutch industry.
Flying industry was in bad weather at that time, Fokker got broke.
In fact it was/is a win win situation for the Air Force as well as the industry.

Government, Air Force, Industry and Trade Unions favored the F35
One’s who does not? Opposition political parties, mainly because of electoral reasons

You are right about “all in” costs of jets, but it gives, to some extent,
at least some idea to compare.
Cost of a Gripen NG, ± $80 million, was mentioned in one of the last letters of the min of Defense this year.
Attached was, there was no idea what (extra) development costs of the Gripen NG will be?

The Gripen NG lacks extra needed pods, where the F35 has got these capabilities.
These extra needed capabilities have to be counted as costs of a Gripen NG, as well
as stated in a letter.

When Saab offered the NG, maintenance costs were given.
Either this was to vague to figure out what the actual costs would be.
A F16 in Belgium and the Netherlands: €20.000 per flying hour.
According gen. D. Berlijn(Neth.), as well as a letter M of P, Belgium

* Maintenance costs will differ by country. Each country will use their own methods
and what is included or not, as well as circumstances will differ (wages, taxes etc.)
Last edited by m on 05 Jun 2011, 12:25, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1057
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post05 Jun 2011, 12:24

Conan wrote:You insinuate that there is something wrong with choosing a "paper plane" so riddle me this.

Was the Eurofighter fully developed and then fairly compared against other modern designs before it was selected by Germany, UK, Spain and Italy?

Was the Rafale fully developed and then tested in open competition against other modern fighters before France signed up for it?

What about the Gripen? Did SAAB fully develop it and did Sweden fully assess it in open competition before choosing it?

Of course not. All of these were development programs, ie: "paper planes" that were chosen by their respective launch customers before their development was completed...

Funny then that only the JSF is held to the standard that IT should be fully developed before anyone dare choose it...


That's a moot point as the situation was entirely different. There is a difference between launching the development programme yourself and participating in one at a latter stage, still launching an "open" competition albeit you are already committed to a programme. For the JSF partners it was probably a wise move to get the best deal possible from the Americans, for the invited contenders (from the US and Europe I might add) it was a hopeless case. The minds were made up already and the selection basically made long before it was formally announced. It's more about the countries themselves than the US or the F-35.

@shep
Just like the Typhoon then Laughing

(Sorry, but that was just too easy) Wink


But the JSF didn't exist at all at that time.
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1057
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post05 Jun 2011, 12:31

m wrote:In both Dutch evaluations double engined jets had no change.
They were/are to expensive to consider them as a replacement for the F16.
Only the F16 advanced, F35 and Gripen and the later on Gripen Ng
were serious contenders.


That makes you wonder why the different twin-engined jets has been considered at all? I think that Eurofighter and Dassault didn't participate in the 2008 competition was very much owed to the fact that they knew that the Dutch wouldn't change their mind at all, thus it was a wise decision not to waste money and time on a lost case.

For the rest I thank you for sharing your thoughts and gathered information and for the way you communicate.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post05 Jun 2011, 12:32

What is the difference? UK started development, with partners, Typhoon as a replacement.
Others rule out more or less existing fighters and follow a same path, as level partners, developing a jet.

Thanks, samewise. Appreciate when someone is also critical.
Otherwise there is no discussion.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests