Norway to reduce F-35 order?

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

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 978
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post28 Apr 2020, 16:38

magitsu wrote:Sweden is going back to the dispersed operations model with its air force. BMD will have to rely mainly on passive methods.


Just wanted to point out that contrary to what was written in an earlier post (that Patriot is primarily meant for air or cruise missile defense), the Swedish armed forces seemed to have emphasized BMD capability while making their choice,and in requesting the system via the FMS case.

BMD via passive means? How will that even work? I don't think you can defend using passive. Maybe mitigate the impact but most definitely not passive intercepts.

magitsu wrote:The Swedes have looked at acquiring the Patriot system as part of developing their defenses. However, in their own studies, they have stated that a single system will not be able to respond to the threat posed by ballistic missiles


Did anyone suggest that this was the case? Certainly, if you want to protect something from all forms of ballistic missile attacks, you need layered point and area defense capability. This is not much of a revelation.

Yet, if you want to increase your capability to counter short to medium range tactical ballistic missiles, particularly around high value / importance military or civil infrastructure then something like a PATRIOT will go a long way.

Between the GEM-T and MSE's, and with the arrival of LTAMDS and the LTFI in the next 5-10 years there will be considerable organic capability to upgrade to to keep pace with the threats. Not to mention the cost imposition impact given what an adversary would need to bring a similar level of impact when the PATRIOT is employed compared to when just HAWK batteries are available.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 729
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post28 Apr 2020, 19:33

bring_it_on wrote:BMD via passive means? How will that even work? I don't think you can defend using passive. Maybe mitigate the impact but most definitely not passive intercepts.

Perhaps read the article I linked instead of inventing strawmen like passive intercept.

bring_it_on wrote:the Swedish armed forces seemed to have emphasized BMD capability while making their choice,and in requesting the system via the FMS case.

These probably should be disregarded when there are better studies like the ones referred to in the article. I'd rather not try to assess Sweden's intentions from FMS jargon instead of the Swedish Defence Research Agency's report to their government Försvarsmaktens långsiktiga materielbehov aka The Defence Force's long term material needs. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dok ... sou-20187/

Here's another if you want to read a bit about passive missile defense from another perspective: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... e-defense/
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 978
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post28 Apr 2020, 19:53

magitsu wrote:These are not to be believed when there's better studies like the ones referred to in the article. Cmon reading Sweden's intentions from FMS jargon instead of the Swedish Defence Research Agency's report Försvarsmaktens långsiktiga materielbehov aka The Defence Force's long term material needs. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dok ... sou-20187/
/


Why would I prefer an article about what Sweden may think to what Sweden has actually done?

Sweden formally requested a PATRIOT package from the US Government. It was a direct Government to Government request with requirements of exact number of systems etc coming directly from the operators/armed-forces in Sweden.

In that package, Sweden requested 200 BMD optimized MSE interceptors. Double the number of GEM-T's they requested. The Swedish armed forces specifically mention the system's BMD capability while advocating for it. The government website is linked in my prior post.

Based on that Sweden signed an LOA for the system in 2018. They will field an ACTIVE BMD capability by mid 2020's.

magitsu wrote:Perhaps read the article I linked instead of inventing strawmen like passive intercept.


One cannot use an article/post from 2017 to conclude what you concluded in that :

BMD will have to rely mainly on passive method


When in 2020, we know that Sweden has become the 16th PATRIOT user and intends to operationalize 4 Fire Units.

So no, BMD (Sweden) will not just rely MAINLY on PASSIVE METHOD. 4 FU's of a capable tactical BMD system will be an integral part of their defense against this threat.

magitsu wrote:Here's another if you want to read a bit about passive missile defense from another perspective: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... e-defense/


I had read it earlier and understand what it is trying to say. That in no way claims that primary defense against a TBM threat needs to be passive. All it is advocating for is a combination of investments and capabilities, some kinetic, and others non-kinetic, some right of launch, and others left of it, some active, yet others passive, to deal with the growing threat. That is generally an accepted view and investments reflect that.

That article in no way supports ANY sort of argument that claims that Sweden acquired its PATRIOT for non BMD roles, or that it views active BMD defense as a non-starter. In fact, if anything is clear, from both their FMS request and subsequent activity to codify it, they seem to want a capable active TBM capability and want so in the next 3-5 years.

I suspect Norway, much like Sweden, will come to a similar conclusion and will be a future PATRIOT operator.
Offline

loke

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1097
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post29 Apr 2020, 07:14

bring_it_on wrote:
magitsu wrote:
I suspect Norway, much like Sweden, will come to a similar conclusion and will be a future PATRIOT operator.

As I wrote in a previous post: The Norwegian armed forces already reached this conclusion, and they asked the politicians to fund a system like that however the Norwegian government chose to not allocate money at this point it time. It is already high on wish list of the Norwegian military.

If and when the money is made available I guess they will evaluate SAMP/T and Patriot, and most likely pick the Patriot.
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 978
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post29 Apr 2020, 13:51

Kongsberg and Raytheon are closely partnered on a number of systems now. With IBCS coming online in 2022, it is not difficult to imagine Kongsberg making NASAMS compatible with it over time.There are also other things to come out of US Army funding that will be viable candidates for NASAMS modernization (particularly aiming at the HAWK replacement market). One such capability would be the Sentinel A4. There is some sense in integrating the Tamir into the NASAMS as well, if the US Army pursues that weapon as part of its SHORAD capability. Its cost (1/3 or less compared to AIM-9X) would make it an ideal weapon for C-UAS upgrades to NASAMS. Even some of Raytheon's high energy laser sub-systems could feature in a future NASAMS upgrade.

Once that happens, then Patriot becomes a pretty easy choice between it and SAMP/T given both IBCS and IBCS to F-35 compatibility. Patriot is undergoing some fairly deep modernization at the moment. Sweden acquired the system right at that transition point (it will receive the system starting 2023 IIRC) so will have to upgrade later. But anyone ordering now or in the next 3-4 years can go straight to LTAMDS, and IBCS. By 2024, even the new interceptor would be under contract.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25431
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Nov 2020, 04:00

'“When it comes to securing stability and predictability in the Arctic, 5th generation airpower will be a key enabler” - Col Egil Soerstroenen, Norway’s F-35 National Deputy

https://twitter.com/theF35JPO/status/13 ... wsrc%5Etfw

F-35 is Cornerstone of Norwegian Defence Strategy with JSM Nov 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYksk-hPNW8

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

doge

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 580
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post15 Feb 2021, 17:14

NATO 8)
https://ac.nato.int/archive/2021/NOR_ASIC-IPPN_2021
NORWEGIAN F-35S READY TO RETRUN TO ICELAND FOR NATO MISSION
FEB 15 2021
RAMSTEIN, Germany - For the second time after 2020, the Norwegian Air Force will deploy their F-35 fighter aircraft to execute NATO’s mission in Iceland providing intercept capabilities for the Ally in the High North.
The upcoming deployment of the fighters and some 130 military and civilian personnel will involve 24/7 readiness for the F-35 detachment under NATO's northern Combined Air Operations Centre at Uedem, Germany; Norwegian Control and Reporting Centre (CRC) personnel will be working alongside their Icelandic Coast Guard colleagues in the CRC at Keflavik Air Base. Norway has manned the mission in 2009, 2011, 2014 and 2016 with their F-16 fighter aircraft; 2021 was the first deployment of Norwegian F-35s.
    For Norway this is good preparation and practice for the Quick Reaction Alert mission that F-35s will fly out of Evenes from 2022 on
NATO member Iceland ensures constant air surveillance within NATO’s Integrated Air and Missile Defence System including production of the Recognised Air Picture for the airspace over Iceland and the North Atlantic. However, the Ally does not have its own military capabilities to conduct Air Policing. Therefore, since mid-2008 the Alliance has provided periodic peacetime deployments of fighter assets to meet Iceland’s operational needs.
Since the beginning of the NATO mission ten Allies (Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States) have manned the regular peacetime deployment showcasing Allied cohesion and solidarity as well as deterrence and defence under the NATO banner.
During this 60th year of NATO Air Policing, the integration of fifth generation fighter aircraft highlights the Allies’ new capabilities available to the collective defence mission ensuring state-of-the-art protection of all Allies.

Story by Allied Air Command Public Affairs Office
Offline

loke

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1097
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post16 Feb 2021, 12:49

Back in 2020 Norway did the first QRA mission on Iceland:

https://www.tu.no/artikler/her-lander-n ... ato/485749

At that time I commented that the number of people involved (130) was significantly larger than the number of people involved when they did QRA with F-16. I was told that this was because it's a new platform, it was the first time they did this mission with the F-35, etc. etc. and the number of people needed to support a QRA mission with the F-35 will drop.

Here we are one year later, and now they are again sending around 130 (?) people to support the QRA mission on Iceland (below they refer to 150 people):

https://www.forsvaret.no/aktuelt-og-pre ... andre-gang

Hmmm.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6772
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 Feb 2021, 16:40

loke wrote:Back in 2020 Norway did the first QRA mission on Iceland:

https://www.tu.no/artikler/her-lander-n ... ato/485749

At that time I commented that the number of people involved (130) was significantly larger than the number of people involved when they did QRA with F-16. I was told that this was because it's a new platform, it was the first time they did this mission with the F-35, etc. etc. and the number of people needed to support a QRA mission with the F-35 will drop.

Here we are one year later, and now they are again sending around 130 (?) people to support the QRA mission on Iceland (below they refer to 150 people):

https://www.forsvaret.no/aktuelt-og-pre ... andre-gang

Hmmm.


4700 an hour
Choose Crews
Offline

loke

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1097
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post16 Feb 2021, 16:46

XanderCrews wrote:
loke wrote:Back in 2020 Norway did the first QRA mission on Iceland:

https://www.tu.no/artikler/her-lander-n ... ato/485749

At that time I commented that the number of people involved (130) was significantly larger than the number of people involved when they did QRA with F-16. I was told that this was because it's a new platform, it was the first time they did this mission with the F-35, etc. etc. and the number of people needed to support a QRA mission with the F-35 will drop.

Here we are one year later, and now they are again sending around 130 (?) people to support the QRA mission on Iceland (below they refer to 150 people):

https://www.forsvaret.no/aktuelt-og-pre ... andre-gang

Hmmm.


4700 an hour

How is that relevant? It seems you are trying to change the subject.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6772
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 Feb 2021, 16:55

loke wrote:How is that relevant?


you can't convince me you're an innocent truth seeker ("hmmm") when you peddle in lies on a regular basis. :wink:

It seems you are trying to change the subject.


they bring more than just pilots and maintainers, yes serious. and that's also why they aren't being too descriptive

Image
Choose Crews
Offline

loke

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1097
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post16 Feb 2021, 17:07

XanderCrews wrote:
loke wrote:How is that relevant?


you can't convince me you're an innocent truth seeker ("hmmm") when you peddle in lies on a regular basis. :wink:

It seems you are trying to change the subject.


they bring more than just pilots and maintainers, yes serious. and that's also why they aren't being too descriptive

Image

I am not peddling in "lies on a regular basis" -- if my sources are inaccurate or if I have misinterpreted or made wrong conclusions then I am happy to be corrected.

Yes, I know they bring more than pilots and maintainers. Of course they do. But guards and other staff don't work for free...
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6772
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 Feb 2021, 17:58

loke wrote:Yes, I know they bring more than pilots and maintainers. Of course they do. But guards and other staff don't work for free...


and?

thats the option they chose, and they're also doing more than just guarding.

it just sure seems that you're trying to imply something.

Loke: F-35 is brining more people than they used to with F-16s.

Me: yes theyre bringing additional security

Loke: additional security doesn't work for free

well yeah, nothing in this business is free.

If you want to say that the F-35 requires more people and thus additional costs by all means you can just say so. Security concerns might vary with aircraft, then again they might not. from my personal experience security decisions can vary greatly and for a myriad of reasons, and most of them have little to do with the aircraft in question (though some do occasionally)

The Norwegians want some muscle around. You are welcome to guess as to why. they've decided whatever possible additional costs are worth it. It may have a lot to do with the F-35. might have very little or even nothing to do with the F-35

my point is, are additional troops the fault of the F-35? are you trying to imply or lump them into it? I can assure you its not 130 people to specifically maintain F-35s for the detachment. lots of people on that detachment won't even touch F-35s. They are there for other reasons, outside F-35 servicing
Choose Crews
Offline

loke

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1097
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post18 Feb 2021, 11:47

XanderCrews wrote:
If you want to say that the F-35 requires more people and thus additional costs by all means you can just say so.

That's the whole point -- F-35 requires more people and thus additional costs. It also has infrastructure requirements that are more demanding than a 4. gen or 4.5 gen platform. Further driving costs.

Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr compares the F-35 to a Ferrari, due to the high costs:

“I want to moderate how much we’re using those aircraft,” he said. “You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays."

https://www.airforcemag.com/brown-launc ... gen-minus/
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6772
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post18 Feb 2021, 16:30

That's the whole point -- F-35 requires more people and thus additional costs. It also has infrastructure requirements that are more demanding than a 4. gen or 4.5 gen platform. Further driving costs.


F-35 actually has demonstrably fewer "infrastuctrues" it goes from a 3 high level maitaince structure to just 2.

That's gonna completely depend dude. You're talking out your a$$. Marine F-35 squadrons are actually smaller in size. Its easier to work on than what the USMC has now, and the high level maintaince and overhead is reduced.

BAS 60 and roadside operations cost more, thats why they stopped doing them.

youre talking about something you have no clue about. I know Gripen fans think theyre experrs on maint. and cost, but I assure, thats not the case. Marines deploy on the boat with just pieces of the squadron. When we come back from the det, we have far more people to service the airplane. and it can flex throughout the year. thats why people look even beyond annual cost and look at blocks of years. So years you fly more, some less. some more deployments, some fewer. Sometimes the squadron is fat, and sometimes its slim. sometimes we get chopped into other groups. some things require more personnel, some fewer.

Again you really have no idea what the hell you're talking about. in the US Military you get paid year round. We don't "clock in and clock out" you get paid whether you sleep all day or work all day. no overtime either. Sometimes we drag people along just to have extra hands. it really varries

So what did loke do wrong? he took one narrow example and applied it to the whole. You can't make an assessment on maint. cost in such a fashion. The USMC is going to have 30 percent fewer Marines needed to Maintain a force of F-35Bs than if we kept the current structure of Prowler, harrier, f-18. We have a net savings.

its really too complicated because you have to be able to look at the entire picture. and make judgements from there. heres a hypothetical: imagine my deployment takes a larger proportion of people to deploy, but the squadron overall is smaller everyday, of every year forever? less than say a Prowler unit. Did I save money? the answer is yes.

if my CPFH went up 10 percent, but thanks to simulators I can fly ten percent less, did my cost go up? You have to know these things to make an assessment. Even if everyone was using the exact same and honest measure of CPFH, its still not an accurate comparison because some airplanes fly more. Harriers take a lot more practice, they fly more. Same with landing on ships in a hornet. If a harrier costs 10 percent less than an F-35 CPFH, but I have to fly it 20 percent more, do I save money?

so in order to make an overall, actual cost comparison you need more data than a deployment with a "fat" security force thats also supposed to be working with and training the host country

some of this stuff is literally unquantifiable. We still don't know what all the F-16 upgrade costs over the decades have actually added up to. then we have to factor in inflation... theres other aspects too. If I'm doing a Red flag, I don't have to bring any security, since the USAF provides it. does that reduce my costs? not really because my squadron gets paid the exact same regardless of Red flag or not, whether we fly or turn a single wrench or not... but does the USAF cost add to it? one of my buddies went to jump school and he has a small stipend for it. our pay also fluctuates on how long one has been in. so if I have yougin's working I'm technically "saving" compared to the salts 9but again not really, because they get paid either way). If a pilot comes out and lends a hand, now our "CPFH" has really gone through the roof. Marines who are married get paid more. if they have kids medical support costs really go thru the roof, but thats not a part of squadron budget. its actually in the Navy's.

This could go on and on endlessly.



Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr compares the F-35 to a Ferrari, due to the high costs:


Your comparing flight costs with security costs?



“I want to moderate how much we’re using those aircraft,” he said. “You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays."

https://www.airforcemag.com/brown-launc ... gen-minus/




its been planned to have reduced hours made up for by the simulators since the start.

Car analogies and airplanes are always bad. Was the F-16 a Honda civic or something?


Swedish air force costs are about to escalate because they're introducing a new type of airplane with Gripen E which shares nearly no parts commonality with whats in service. They're about to go from a single type fighter force to two. means new training, separate logistics and a lack of interoperability, new redundancies, etc. should be fun and with no plans to stop using the older gripen with the new, the costs will stay the same. its not reported on of course.

have a ball
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], zhangmdev and 40 guests