F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

[Palnatoke]

While I have no knowledge of aviation, I can't help thinking that it's odd that we continues to develop more and more complex, cabable and expensive systems while the conflicts that we fights grows more and more asymetrical and unsuited for our complex machines.

It's like we have transferred the raison behind the cold war's nuclear armament to conventional war, in which the new signal is: "Look how cabable, complex and expensive our machines are, you don't have a chance to build something nearly as cabable, complex and expensive; so you loose"
The surprising part is that we still have the nukes, the cold war's logic still applies to all circumstances in which these new machines also applies. And the cases in which our nukes don't apply, f.ex. the case of mr Bin Laden, or Mullah Omar of talliban, the new machines are equally ineffective.

In the mean time our soldiers come home in coffins - slained by some recycled wire and some fertilizer.

 

[Grand Danois]

An analogy could be that soldiers in A-stan are using sophisticated vehicles, with advanced comms, esm, sigint, jammers, night vision and TIRs, robotic weapons mounts, central tire inflation, and armoured and designed to withstand or deflect IEDs, RPGs, and small arms fire.

Makes the mission possible in a whole other way than a M113 "Gavin" variant would.

The enemy would still use remote controlled explosive devices...

 

[Grand Danois]

"Sprey, Wheeler et al. wants something radically different from todays concept of air power..."

There whole concept of war fighting is radically different. Its a fundamental philosophical difference.
They are of the opinion that the US is geared to fighting a 2 generational war, based on fire power not maneuver. There vision is a US military that is geared to fighting a war of movement, a third generational conflict, this is why they focus on tactical aviation so much.

I'm not sure if I'm reading you right, but to my eye, Wheeler would like to fight the way they did in WWII or Korea...

 

[Palnatoke]

GD

It would, imho, be a great idea to spend a lot more ressources on protecting our soldiers in A-stan from the primary weapon of the enemy. Then we could continue to bomb them with our F16s (or the like) well knowing that their obsolete RCS, is irrelevant since taliban doesn't have radars....

And we could say clearly that if a power wants to fight us, against whom our F16s aren't good enough.. then:

235U + 1 neutron -> 2 neutrons + 92Kr + 142Ba + ENERGY
235U + 1 neutron -> 2 neutrons + 92Sr + 140Xe + ENERGY

 

[Grand Danois]

GD

It would, imho, be a great idea to spend a lot more ressources on protecting our soldiers in A-stan from the primary weapon of the enemy. Then we could continue to bomb them with our F16s (or the like) well knowing that their obsolete RCS, is irrelevant since taliban doesn't have radars....

This is called this-war-itis. A military has to have to look at its future beyond a conflict like A-stan. What about conflicts where RCS does matter?

And we could say clearly that if a power wants to fight us, against whom our F16s aren't good enough.. then:

235U + 1 neutron -> 2 neutrons + 92Kr + 142Ba + ENERGY
235U + 1 neutron -> 2 neutrons + 92Sr + 140Xe + ENERGY

And what about everything between peace and nuclear war, e.g. the US disarmed massively after WWII, relying on nuclear weapons, only to find out it had to rearm conventionally to fight North Korea.

 

[Palnatoke]

Well I see it as a balance act; Large powers like US, UK, Fr needs to be able to balance/dominate potential enemies, smaller powers might do better adding in other cababilities, in an allience structure.

This is called this-war-itis. A military has to have to look at its future beyond a conflict like A-stan. What about conflicts where RCS does matter?

I don't think it's " this-war-itis", we can expect that these are conflicts that our army and securty forces will fight. That's not saying that our forces shouldn't be able to provide a credible deterence against a - realistic - traditional aggressive foe. As I read the ballance, NATO has a relatively huge (and useless) traditional fighting power against which there exists no credible enemy. So with or without 5th generation fighters, I see little difference.

On the otherhand there exists untraditional powers against which our huge traditional armies are useless. I think we should be much more concerned about that. Maybe then the west can change it's post WW2 record of loosing (or not-worth-the-effort) about every major war we fights.

And what about everything between peace and nuclear war, e.g. the US disarmed massively after WWII, relying on nuclear weapons, only to find out it had to rearm conventionally to fight North Korea.

Well, in my oppinion, NATO should be able to do a 1st. gulf war, not necessarely in such a sweeping, overpowered, fachion like it were conducted, but it should with in reach and acceptable cassulties.
In a replay of the korean war, I suggest that we this time start with the tactical nukes.

I am not advocating that we disarm, we should re-arm in my oppinion. But we should arm ourself to tomorrow's war, not yesterday's war.

 

[Grand Danois]

Balancing act is exactly the word I had in mind

OK, if the context is the Danish military then I think fighter jets do have their place especially when subcontracting to alliance ops. An all army Danish military doesn't can't maintain the same manpower levels as a balanced one.

And there are scenarios which pertains to Denmark, where a small fighter for is needed for sovereignty reasons.

I've only suggested using nukes for cost-benefit reasons when I'm sarcastic - just not an acceptable solution.

 

[Palnatoke]

Balancing act is exactly the word I had in mind

OK, if the context is the Danish military then I think fighter jets do have their place especially when subcontracting to alliance ops. An all army Danish military doesn't can't maintain the same manpower levels as a balanced one.

And there are scenarios which pertains to Denmark, where a small fighter for is needed for sovereignty reasons.

I've only suggested using nukes for cost-benefit reasons when I'm sarcastic - just not an acceptable solution.

If we take DK as an example of a small NATO country: The budget for buying new fighter airplanes (most likely F35), 40 billion DKr, is nearly twice the yearly total defense expenditures of around 22 billion Dkr. For comparison the less-than-best-in-world Danish healthcare system (a major political issue in this country) could, according to the responsible, be ramped up to the very best in world, with an investment of 100 billion DKr, money that we don't have.
DK together with No and Sw are the proud weltmeisters of giving foreign aid to developing countries; That bill is 14 billion Dkr.
The entire education budget (primary schools, youth education, higher education) is around 120-150 billion..
So 40 billion is a lot of money.

So far, what has the airforce used it's fighter assets for? The most sexy I can remember was dropping bombs on tallibans, helping the balts "showing the flag" in their airspace, and showing the flag when an antiquated russian bomber lost it's direction (or witts) and got too close to bornholm. Now, not being an air general, I am pretty sure that a F16 can accomplish these tasks. I add to this that allready now, deploying the 6-7 F16s standing ready for rapid deployment to f.ex. Afgh, is so expensive that the defense hardly got the money and the allience demand for fighter aircrafts are near nill, since the allience got plenty of fighter aircrafts for the task at hand. It is my impression that the danish contribution to nato "fighter air tasks" are quite moderate or, rather, insignificant.

Where Denmark has been able to contribute significantly is in navial deployments, lately in Lebannon and anti piracy at the horn of africa. And ofcourse with a- relative to size, and many other NATO countries - disporportional army engagement in Afghanistan, where a lot of soldiers have been lost and billions of good money fired at "the enemy".

These policies of engagement has earned Denmark a lot of credit, and some influence, amoung our major security partners (noticably US/UK) on whom our national security fundamentally rest upon, and as such the danish defense has proven that it is relevant in danish security and foreign policy. But it's not the fighting wing of the airforce that doing the job. If US/UK wants some airpower, they deploy a carrier that has more airplanes than the entire danish airforce, but having denmark sending, say 1000, ground troops is partly 1000 US/UK families that doesn't need to miss their "loved ones", but more importantly it's a strong political signal to send infanteri into harms way, deploying air assets is more a question of "money", and it won't give DK the same credit.

So from a "do what you are best at" or cost benefit analysis, I think it's pretty sound to suggest that those 40 billion could be used a lot better on systems surporting the army (maybe some more air transports, helicopters or a full deployable brigade?) or on the navy, than a few hugely expensive fighters, that will probably only be used for fancy formation flying on the Queen's Birthday. Ofcourse then our old f16s has to soldier on, and should we feel threathed at some point in the future, a land based air defense system could be aquired, if needed (which is also consistent with the obvious future scenario: Robots will dominate the sky).

I stress that for a large country, the above doesn't apply.

I've only suggested using nukes for cost-benefit reasons when I'm sarcastic

I am not sarcastic. There is absolutely no reason to f.ex. pretend that we are willing to sacrifice so and so many 10000s of young men to stop country X from running over Taiwan, instead we suggest a diplomatic solution, if ignored, the tactical nukes are used, and if ignored, it's nuclear holocaust. Then country X won't begin in the first place.

 

[Grand Danois]

If we take DK as an example of a small NATO country: The budget for buying new fighter airplanes (most likely F35), 40 billion DKr, is nearly twice the yearly total defense expenditures of around 22 billion Dkr. For comparison the less-than-best-in-world Danish healthcare system (a major political issue in this country) could, according to the responsible, be ramped up to the very best in world, with an investment of 100 billion DKr, money that we don't have.
DK together with No and Sw are the proud weltmeisters of giving foreign aid to developing countries; That bill is 14 billion Dkr.

The entire education budget (primary schools, youth education, higher education) is around 120-150 billion..
So 40 billion is a lot of money.

The fighter acquisition itself will cost less than 20 bn dkk. Running the entire fighter arm of the air force is something like 80-90 bn dkk over 35 years.

In that period we'll use 525 bn dkk on foreing aid, 4 725 bn dkk on education and 770 bn dkk on military total.

One can always convert the public expenditure on science, culture, mayor's salaries, military to daycare and hospitals for sake of argument.

So far, what has the airforce used it's fighter assets for? The most sexy I can remember was dropping bombs on tallibans, helping the balts "showing the flag" in their airspace, and showing the flag when an antiquated russian bomber lost it's direction (or witts) and got too close to bornholm. Now, not being an air general, I am pretty sure that a F16 can accomplish these tasks. I add to this that allready now, deploying the 6-7 F16s standing ready for rapid deployment to f.ex. Afgh, is so expensive that the defense hardly got the money and the allience demand for fighter aircrafts are near nill, since the allience got plenty of fighter aircrafts for the task at hand. It is my impression that the danish contribution to nato "fighter air tasks" are quite moderate or, rather, insignificant.

It's not only for deployment, it's also a "force in being". And we are required by NATO to patrol our skies, btw.

Rapid deployment is not for afgh or the baltics - you should check out operation allied force - if you were to undertake such an operation in the future, we would need a capable, survivable jet with can work in lockstep with our allies.

Where Denmark has been able to contribute significantly is in navial deployments, lately in Lebannon and anti piracy at the horn of africa. And ofcourse with a- relative to size, and many other NATO countries - disporportional army engagement in Afghanistan, where a lot of soldiers have been lost and billions of good money fired at "the enemy".

These policies of engagement has earned Denmark a lot of credit, and some influence, amoung our major security partners (noticably US/UK) on whom our national security fundamentally rest upon, and as such the danish defense has proven that it is relevant in danish security and foreign policy. But it's not the fighting wing of the airforce that doing the job. If US/UK wants some airpower, they deploy a carrier that has more airplanes than the entire danish airforce, but having denmark sending, say 1000, ground troops is partly 1000 US/UK families that doesn't need to miss their "loved ones", but more importantly it's a strong political signal to send infanteri into harms way, deploying air assets is more a question of "money", and it won't give DK the same credit.

So this is the only type of operations we should provide support to; I'd argue that we should also be able to provide an air force component as not to limit ourselves to grunt conflicts only.

So from a "do what you are best at" or cost benefit analysis, I think it's pretty sound to suggest that those 40 billion could be used a lot better on systems surporting the army (maybe some more air transports, helicopters or a full deployable brigade?) or on the navy, than a few hugely expensive fighters, that will probably only be used for fancy formation flying on the Queen's Birthday. Ofcourse then our old f16s has to soldier on, and should we feel threathed at some point in the future, a land based air defense system could be aquired, if needed (which is also consistent with the obvious future scenario: Robots will dominate the sky).

I stress that for a large country, the above doesn't apply.

You can't convert air force expenditure to army expenditure, i.e. extrapolate the sums spent into additional army capability. We don't have that potential.

I am not sarcastic. There is absolutely no reason to f.ex. pretend that we are willing to sacrifice so and so many 10000s of young men to stop country X from running over Taiwan, instead we suggest a diplomatic solution, if ignored, the tactical nukes are used, and if ignored, it's nuclear holocaust. Then country X won't begin in the first place.

The US monopoly in nukes didn't prevent NK to attack SK and the US never used nukes (though Macarthur wanted to nuke the chinese). In fact, in the future with proliferation we're seeing today, this logic is bound to fail.

Btw, i didn't think I said you was sarcastic - it's just that it's a type of argument that I would use when being ascerbic.

 

[Vivendi]

GD,

on a related note: Any theories as to why Denmark has decided to delay the decision on figher jet?

On of the main arguments in Norway to make a decision during fall 2008 was to make sure that Norwegian industry would be able to position itself in the competition for contracts.

It seems that the Danish industry now see they got a problem:

Industry demands more from Lockheed - Politiken.dk

Which begs the question: Why not make a decision, and thereby help out the industry? We already know which plane belongs to the future; it also happens to be the cheapest, produced by Denmarks closest ally, and Denmark is even a partner and makes investments every year. So why not just spell it out, make an official statement and remove the uncertainly for industry? Making a decision to buy the F-35 (if that happens to be Demarks choice ) does not mean to immediately sign the dotted line, neither does it mean a final commitment to number of aircrafts. I am confused ...

 

[Grand Danois]

GD,

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.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Its all lies, they are lairs and they know it.

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?

 

[Toptob]

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

 

[Grand Danois]

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

 

[Palnatoke]

GD

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

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.

 

[Grand Danois]

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.

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.

 

[Palnatoke]

I believe they chose wisely with the former model

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.

 

[Grand Danois]

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.

Fortrolige tal fra Forsvarskommission: F16-kampfly holder længe endnu | Ingeniøren

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.

I did find these, though, in danish:

national audit, see II.9:
http://www.rigsrevisionen.dk/media(438,1030)/A508-07.pdf sec. II.9

and

http://www.fmn.dk/Nyt og Presse/Documents/evt_anskaf_ny_kampfly.pdf

They both say the F-16s are economically untenable beyond mid-term, then bugger all and let's rebarrel them! It just ain't cheaper.

On Polish F-16s; they were delivered in 2006-2009. We need new jets in 2016-2020 - which can slide 2 years to the left. Ten years has passed.

 

[Palnatoke]

GD

The figure Bent Hansen put out for modernisation was 100 Bn, that is ofcourse exclusive the running costs of the health care system.

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.

It just ain't cheaper.

I think that is highly debateable.

 

[Grand Danois]

I think that is highly debateable.

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."