This is a discussion on Is the F-35 doomed? within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Vivendi
GD,
on a related note: Any theories as to why Denmark has decided to delay the ...
on a related note: Any theories as to why Denmark has decided to delay the decision on figher jet?
Yes.
Chronologically:
The defmin insisted on making an 4 year defence agreement which included the opposition, parties for the sake of a parliamentarian united position on defence the coming years.
He got that.
What then happened was that defence command made a gargantuan and massive PR ferkup leading to the resignation of the highest ranking uniform in the danish military - the chief of the defence command, together with two high ranking officers, both of whom are under investigation.
In the process of this, the defmin was left in a poor position, as he was massively let down by his own institutions. This in turn lead to a massive attack by the opposition on the defmin.
Which is why he has an awful position to negotiate anything at the moment, leading to a postbonement - as he is required to include the opposition in any decision as per the agreement.
So, type selection will be made when things calm down.
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
Actually they do know what they are talking about for the most part, that’s the worst thing. They are out there deliberately misleading people.
You can blame LM for the F-22A, they screwed the pooch on that one. In 10 years half of that small fleet won’t be able to conduct air superiority missions (what the platform was designed for) because of software obsolescence and the fact that upgrades designed for the newer end of the fleet can not be applied to the older platforms.
Because in terms of airframe design, weight and to an extent the platforms intended roll they are similar. But to use that to make judgements on the F-35A's capability fundamentally misunderstands (or misrepresents) the nature of the battle-space the F-35A will be operating in. Just the F-35A's sensor and weapons package makes it more lethal than any other non F-22A platform yet devised. You could put that sensor/weapon combination on an F-16 and it would be more capable than the USAF's F-15C fleet. Battle isn’t just about instantaneous turn rates and energy management any more, information dominance is the name of the game and from that perspective the F-35A is a killer.
I do blame LM for the most part though a little blame goes to the government. They took way too long and kept dragging their feet of the F-22.
I think the F-35 will be killer in both areas, and why wouldn't it?
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
I think this is a decent enough thread, so I'll dignify it with a response.
To the first post: as other people said, the source is questionable.
To all the people responding: I have only seen one or two decent responses to the allegations made in the article from the first post. Sometimes I worry that some of you people cant even read or something, because nowhere did it say that the F-35 and the F-105 are related except for their (prospected) performance.
Also, if all you have to say is that the author of some piece is biased or just stupid or something. Please tell it to your mom/GF/wife, because if one person has said that the second one doesnt really add to the discussion. Instead try to prove why someone is full of shit. (with links and stuff)
Now the small country debate and since everyone is sprinkling opinions here's mine:
I totally agree that the F-35 is a terribly lavish expense for most of the partner nations. I take the Netherlands as my example because thats where I'm from. The government, or rather the airforce wants to purchase 85 F-35's for 6Bn euro's. I say we don't need, nor can we afford the F-35.
First of all, we will never get 85 aircraft for 6Bn. The lightning will go horribly over budget, and as projections stand today it would be closer to 45 aircraft. BUT LM refuses to give price estimations to our government so we dont know really. And we cant decide if the F-35 will fit our budget. The airforce, being the American fanboys that they are had already decided they wanted the new american plane before the yanks even thought of it. So there's little choice for parliament, and that's a real pickle for them.
But if, if we would for instance purchase the Gripen. There would be a fixed price which we already know. We would have a very capable aircraft in sufficient numbers to make sense to have them at all with running costs that are very very decent.
And finally the whole partner program is just total nonsense. We (the NL) were promised offsets in the development stage, which by far have not been met. And I can just feel it that the other promises of offsets wont be met. Also there wont be any TOT, which we would have with most other aircraft. So all in all, I think the F-35 program is one big scam.
To summarize my opinions:
1: F-35 schedule is sketchy at best (as with all aerospace projects)
2: The price has been kept low to lure partners into the program, and will be much higher than anticipated.
3: Other aircraft (i.e. gripen for NL) can deliver more then enough capability for much less costs.
4: The partner program is a joke, we (the NL) havent seen the promised offsets. And its questionable if the Yanks will keep their promises to all their partners.
5: I'm sure the F-35 will be a pretty capable aircraft, but there are too many bad practices surrounding it to make it not worth the effort.
6: As I read threads on this forum, I see that a lot of people are very biased that on other topics arent. Some posts in this thread really disappointed me, and I think that people let the idea of the F-35 blind them a little.
I want to add however that:
1: I am pretty new to this forum and I dont want to insult anyone.
2: I am no defense professional.
and 3: Feanor is the bee's knee's
To summarize my opinions:
1: F-35 schedule is sketchy at best (as with all aerospace projects)
2: The price has been kept low to lure partners into the program, and will be much higher than anticipated.
3: Other aircraft (i.e. gripen for NL) can deliver more then enough capability for much less costs.
4: The partner program is a joke, we (the NL) havent seen the promised offsets. And its questionable if the Yanks will keep their promises to all their partners.
5: I'm sure the F-35 will be a pretty capable aircraft, but there are too many bad practices surrounding it to make it not worth the effort.
6: As I read threads on this forum, I see that a lot of people are very biased that on other topics arent. Some posts in this thread really disappointed me, and I think that people let the idea of the F-35 blind them a little.
I want to add however that:
1: I am pretty new to this forum and I dont want to insult anyone.
2: I am no defense professional.
and 3: Feanor is the bee's knee's
1) The schedule is indeed the weak part - but only the flight testing, everything else seems to be on track.
2) the pricing are best estimates on available data - e.g the LRIP that will be built now will be CHEAPER than projected (per unit). Cost overruns on SDD doesn't run into recurring fly away costs.
3) Define capability today and 30 years from now. A long sqn of Gripen C/D for air policing only could fit the bill for many small nations. Note that I said C/D - the official SAAB RBI figure on Gripen NG is in fact more expensive than the F-35!
4) There has been no offsets related to production in Holland, because no jets has been ordered! As to the expenses from the SDD phase, Holland has gotten about half of them back, halfway through the SDD phase. Btw, there are many more contracts and companies involved in the partner nations than you can find in public (da intarnez).
5) Which ones?
6) or perhaps they understand what the concept of the F-35 offers and why the US/LM/partners/ aren't building a jet like Gripen.
cheers
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
The budget is around 40 bn Dkr (as I understand it) for aquiring the system, you can chose to view those money over 30-35, years, in which case the simple way to determine the finance costs, is by the cost of a loan at 40bn on the international market running for 30-35 years. Without knowing at which interest rate the danish state can loan money, I am pretty sure that the end bill will be substancially higher than 40 billion. My point is that it's a lot of money, that, imho, requires carefull thought before spendt.
I am not saying that we shouldn't have a "fighter wing" of the airforce, but I am suggesting that there is a third option: Keep the F16s. According to "Ingeniøren", this is will be a much cheaper solution (Poland actually just bought f16s....).
Vivendi
Quote:
Any theories as to why Denmark has decided to delay the decision on figher jet?
I guess that I am not the only one that doubts the wisdom and cost-benefit of the airforce's (understandable) wish to get new fancy toys.
Also, some might suggest, we do have a security strategy in DK, which actually stippulates that there is no threath against danish territory for a forseeable future, in other word's the F35 (forget about the gripen) will not be used in a territorial defense, so the use of the f35 will only be in international missions on foreign soil, and of obvious reasons DK will only be in such conflicts together with major allience partners (F.ex. the US), and it seems to me that such partners are much more interested in our ground forces and navy, than adding a few F35s to the vast pool of the USAF.
Smaller european countries are forced to think their security in an allience context, and hence the small country, depending on the allience for security, should ask it self: "How can I surrport the allience in the best way possible, and thereby surport my own security". It's obvious to me that the small country have some "economy of scale" against it, when we talk of these complex and expensive systems (like modern fighters, large scale airtransportation etc) so maybe the small country should concentrate on strength contributions more suited to be deployed by a smaller country. F.ex. DK could choose to concentrate on having the full brigade ready for international deployment that the last two defense reviews have called for, but a goal yet unfullfilled (money being the problem, not recruitment)- then the americans, brits or germans can bring the modern fighters to the table.
The budget is around 40 bn Dkr (as I understand it) for aquiring the system, you can chose to view those money over 30-35, years, in which case the simple way to determine the finance costs, is by the cost of a loan at 40bn on the international market running for 30-35 years. Without knowing at which interest rate the danish state can loan money, I am pretty sure that the end bill will be substancially higher than 40 billion. My point is that it's a lot of money, that, imho, requires carefull thought before spendt.
In ballpark numbers:
The acquisition budget, i.e. buying jets and implementing them into the air force with initial spares (basically the first 2-4 years) is 20 bn DKKor about 70 mn USD per jet if 48 were to be purchased. That would be a unit procurement cost.
Over the lifetime of the jets an additional 20+ bn DKK or more is required in spares, external support etc.
And running the entire fighter wing is 80-90 bn (or thereabouts) over the period (includes procurement, spares, weapons, support, basing, personnel, everything).
The Norwegians calculated that it would cost 145 bn NOK running their fighter air arm over a similar period, but with 56 jets - and including major base modifications, btw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palnatoke
I am not saying that we shouldn't have a "fighter wing" of the airforce, but I am suggesting that there is a third option: Keep the F16s. According to "Ingeniøren", this is will be a much cheaper solution (Poland actually just bought f16s....).
The Ingeniøren solution would provide an additional 4-8 years of airframe life (correct me if I remember wrong), which would also include an expensive overhaul. Just to keep old, expensive per flight hour jets flying (they need a fair amount of maint).
I would almost insinuate that it would be cheaper to transfer to Gripen C/Ds right away.
Anyways - there were several options available to the politicians and they chose the "global warrior model" where JSF is the best fit over the "nightwatch model" where Gripen C/D (or E/F) would be the best fit.
I believe they chose wisely with the former model, so we're are just not going to agree.
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
I think that this deal hangs in the balance. The Social democrats have not given their nod, we know the traditional position of SF and R, and the goverment will run a great risc pushing this through with the votes of DF alone. The election is not that far away, and it would be a good position for the Soc to be able to say: Look the goverment just spended 40Bn, on an unneeded new fighter, while the old had half their lifetime left, and the national economy is imploding; How's that for fiscal responsibility?.
But OK, let's say 100 Bn in all. The same as "regionerne" demanded for new hospitals and the like, which I quess is also over the same time length.
Last edited by Palnatoke; November 15th, 2009 at 06:38 PM.
I think that this deal hangs in the balance. The Social democrats have not given their nod, we know the traditional position of SF and R, and the goverment will run a great risc pushing this through with the votes of DF alone. The election is not that far away, and it would be a good position for the Soc to be able to say: Look the goverment just spended 40Bn, on an unneeded new fighter, while the old had half their lifetime left, and the national economy is imploding; How's that for fiscal responsibility?.
But OK, let's say 100 Bn in all. The same as "regionerne" demanded for new hospitals and the like, which I quess is also over the same time length.
lol! The "Regions" will spend 280 bn DKK on medicinal supplies on just the hospitals in this period !!! It's 6.2 bn this year with with expected growth to 10 bn dkk in 2016... and this is just for medication on hospitals...
Building the new "super" hospitals may cost 100 bn dkk, but the vast, vast majority of expenses are on salaries.
Anyways I found the danish article you metioned - I thought Ingeniøren made articles inaccessible after three weeks.
Bluntly, the article doesn't say 20 years beyond 2020. I've read more accurate reports of this notam which say less than 10 years extra and btw, there are official spreadsheets on how many hours each and every danish F-16... but my Google Foo isn't up to finding it.
The figure Bent Hansen put out for modernisation was 100 Bn, that is ofcourse exclusive the running costs of the health care system.
Quote:
Bluntly, the article doesn't say 20 years beyond 2020
No it implies " beyound 2029". I think that one could suggest that, that implies that the smart move is to wait and see....
One could speculate that, given the nice security situation of DK for the moment, what's important is that DK mantains the cabaility to expand it's airforce in the future, should the security situation deteriorate. F16s could do that for us.
Well, I'm going to take the cheap route and make a call to authority and say, with the sources at hand, that taking the F-16s out to 2029 is technically doable but a bad economical decision.
btw, "endnu" would mean "yet" or so. As in "yet another 20 years."
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
Well, I'm going to take the cheap route and make a call to authority and say, with the sources at hand, that taking the F-16s out to 2029 is technically doable but a bad economical decision. ."
Well I don't think highly about the authorativeness of those behind that claim.
Anyway I admit that 2030 is not helping us a lot, besides stalling a little bit longer, which seems to be what we are doing.
It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:
Here's a quote: "At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)
Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."
As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10"
Is the F35 destined to be an all-time mega-expensive failure? Should partner countries start looking at other options? Your thoughtful comments, please.
I wouldn't be to concerned about the F 35 joint strike fighter program, to many countries have invested in this program. Their would just be delay's on deliveries that's all. The best thing Australia could do is build their own F35 joint strike fighters under licence from the US. This would help the US and be great for the Australian Defence Industry.
Thats not going to happen. While we might get additional building rights (like turkey fought for) it would add to the cost per plane and would take longer.
Australia is a partner nation that has had real benefits and production given to it. Australia seems pretty happy with that part of the F-35 program. The only part we aren't happy with was delivery dates, which were always going to be close for us anyway. Our rebarrelling went tits up which ment we had even less time than we thought. The F-111 are pretty much offline, and our F-18 are completely shagged.
Hence the Superhornet buy/lease. Which still means we can get a full loadout of F-35, but we can hang out a bit longer, get used to flying a aircraft with simular technologies and even once the F-35 deliveries go ahead, we don't have to be first dressed. We can also opt to keep some as electronic warfare varients if we want or pass them onto the USN which is pretty happy with the whole thing too.
Other airforces may have to perform simular leases/buys, that can be arranged. Hopefully the F-35 will stay on track. Its that sort of optioning that keeps countries like Australia which had a massive imperiative to get something *NOW* in the F-35 program. However, when it became clear we weren't going to get a silver bullet force of F-22's we were dead keen on staying in the F-35 program. It really is the best option if you have the money.
I do not think that there's a chance in Hell that the F-35 project will be stopped now.
Too much US ego and US $ has already been invested in it.
The US have recklessly put all of their eggs in one dubious looking basket and all old wealthy
NATO members will be forced to buy from it.
They do not have any other options. Sure, they will put up a nice show for the public and they
will all barter and bicker over price and terms, but the bottom line is that classical :
"either you are with us, or you are against us".
Fine, that's the rules of the game and not much to complain about.
What does bother me however, is that all US allies might get an extremly expensive runt that
won't deliver what LM has promised and that the "western" air forces will become weaker from it.
That is not acceptable. Time will tell...
What does bother me however, is that all US allies might get an extremly expensive runt that
won't deliver what LM has promised and that the "western" air forces will become weaker from it.
That is not acceptable. Time will tell...
All three prototype versions have flown, and have been for years. The prototype versions beat Boeing prototype versions in a flyoff watched and developed by the funds of several nations. This so called American aircraft is more a multi-nation program from the very start of the program than any previous aircraft. While there have been some setbacks, the program proceeds and many off the production line aircraft have been built and are being tested. Not once has anyone or any nation complained about the product as yet. Even the GAO and CBO, US government watchdogs, continue to support the program.
The testing program of the production line aircraft is continuing without much of any major setbacks. Since so many nations wish to buy this aircraft, this aircraft is going through the most comprehensive testing of any aircraft in history. So far the aircraft is passing all tests and meeting its specifications called for. For some reason uninformed people are questioning this aircraft. I suspect all of them have other agendas to undercut this aircraft falsely.
There is not ONE crumb of evidence that this aircraft won't deliver as promised. NOT ONE!
It just ain't cheaper.
