Royal Norwegian Air Force news and discussion

ASFC

New Member
u made claim that Russians hasnt done in VLO field. I have shown that they modified MIG-21 that it make it impossible for fighter radar for BVR fight. what does it tell you there real capabilites for there own fighters. Infact similar things have been achieved with MIG-29K.
No you haven't. Since when are MiG-21s and MiG-29s VLO Aircraft??

Just because an Aircraft is capable of BVR Combat does not make it a VLO aircraft.

And whilst i'm sure gf0012-aust can look after himself, he and several other posters have made it clear on a number of occasions that warfighting is not just about platforms or 'stealth fighters' alone.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If Norway considers Gripen NG to be not adequate, is that then also applicable for Eurofighter, Rafale and Superhornet?
The inference from that is that the Gripen NG is as competent as the other cited aircraft.

Thats a long stretch of the bow as it ignores a whole raft of issues eg:


  • tech sharing impact on NATO systems (Sweden is getting access to NATO structured comms and feed systems - but is a long way away from being a NATO member. NATO interoperability is a significant issue. On that basis Eurofighter and SHornet are still better candidates
  • weapons mix options - JSF will be certified for all NATO weapons mixes by default - as will Eurofighter and Shornet - Gripen and Rafale are not - and certification is borne by any arrangements with the buyer and seller - and subject to release by US/NATO anyway. again, weapons cert is an interoperability issue, an interoperability advantage etc...
  • degree of service - it makes a bit more sense to go with an aircraft that has a large user base - parts and availability as well as cross development that certifies new tech for all partners is far more important. eg Eurofighter and Shornet have a large user base - they're not orphaned by limited user bases
  • where is the NG offering the same capability at a systems level that Eurofighter or Shornet offer? Already established, large user bases, already wired for the next 5 year releases of ewarfare systems etc... NG is fundamentally greenfields in comparison.
This needs to stay on track though, otherwise it runs the risk of degrading into another "my platform is better than yours" debate. If that happens then it runs the risk of lockdown.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
weapons mix options - JSF will be certified for all NATO weapons mixes by default - as will Eurofighter and Shornet
*cough* Kongsberg JSM/NSM offset only with JSF, oh my *cough*

What do you mean by "all NATO weapon mixes"? All standard NATO weapons? I have real doubts we'll ever see Meteor or IRIS-T integration on Super Hornet for example. Or JSM on Eurofighter, unless it actually becomes a default Harpoon successor, and even then i'd be doubtful. There won't be any HOPE/HOSBA on JSF. And no SDB on any European aircraft but JSF. And so on and on and on.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
*cough* Kongsberg JSM/NSM offset only with JSF, oh my *cough*

What do you mean by "all NATO weapon mixes"? All standard NATO weapons? I have real doubts we'll ever see Meteor or IRIS-T integration on Super Hornet for example. Or JSM on Eurofighter, unless it actually becomes a default Harpoon successor, and even then i'd be doubtful. There won't be any HOPE/HOSBA on JSF. And no SDB on any European aircraft but JSF. And so on and on and on.
I mean the bussing for those weapons - not necessarily the weapons. The same problem for Gripen certification is the same for Rafale.

Eurofighter and US platforms already have NATO compliant busses for weapons mixes. The rest is certification and accreditation for carriage and use.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
So far, the discussion in this thread has really only concentrated on fighter aircraft, revolving (devolving?) around the F-35 JSF and the proposed Gripen NG. My personal feeling is that in selecting the F-35, Norway will have gotten the aircraft that best suits their needs in the near- and longer-term future.

An area of the RNoAF that has not really been looked at is their possession of force multipliers and supporting assets. Given the increase in effectiveness these can give an air force, and the growing number of countries that will possess them, it seems sensible (to me) to look at this.

At present, the transport capability seems to be in transition. The 6 C-130H Hercules are being retired, to be replaced with 4 C-130J Hercs. While the -J is more capable than the -H was, I question the decrease in numbers. I would think that, even with the increased capacity of a -J, a decrease in total numbers a third would represent a drop in total available capacity. This at a time when I would expect Norway to have more involvement in issues away from Norwegian soil and thus have an increase in transportation requirements. In a similar vein, the various helicopters used (Bell 412, Lynx and Sea King) appear set for replacement with NH-90 helicopters. On an individual helicopter level it is a boost in capability. However, I think as a total force, it represents a decline in capability, as ~36 helicopters are being replaced by 14 (AFAIK).

My personal feeling is that Norway would be well served by either increasing the numbers ordered, or placing follow-on orders. For the transport aircraft, ordering perhaps an additional 2+ C-130J Hercules (or even better, KC-130J) or maybe 4-6 C-27J Spartan/G.222. Another possibility (assuming it does get completed) is to order 2 A400M or even A330 MRTT. Assuming Norway does engage in foreign deployments, they will need some sort of transport capability able to support such deployments as well as 'local' needs. Adding a capability like AAR would just make such aircraft that much more useful to Norway and their allies.

For helicopters, I do not think 14 enough, particularly since they would provide utility as well as SAR roles. The current force has 18 for each role, the planned replacement would have less than that number to fufill either role. Assuming the standard figure of one third available for ops at any one time, that might mean only 5 NH90 helicopters vs. the current 4 Sea Kings, 2 Lynx and 6 Bell 412s. I would think a second helicopter order, either of additional NH-90s, or perhaps a larger helicopter design like the EH-101 Merlin or CH-47 Chinook or Sikorsky S-92.

I am curious what others think about the transport and helicopter support, or if anyone has additional figures other than the ones I have come across.

-Cheers
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I agree with you entirely about transport. The best mix of types is dependent on the things they want to transport, & who they will be working with. For example, it may not be worth Norway having an AAR capability, but better to share it with others, & instead, provide more plain transports. Or perhaps the converse, borrow transport capability, & repay by providing AAR. But I think the main point, that Norway needs more, not less, & current plans are moving in the opposite direction, is incontrovertible. I'd tend towards more C-130J, perhaps in the KC-130J version, unless a second type could be maintained jointly with other forces, because I worry about the logistical implications of more types with such small numbers.

Same with the helicopters. Too big a cut in numbers to be made up by better individual capability, & not enough overall capability. My gut feeling (unsupported by any analysis) is that for such a small fleet, as with the transports, the logistical disadvantages of additional types make it unwise to introduce them unless the NH90 just can't do the job, & it's hard to think of a job Norway needs doing that the NH90 can't do, & more NH90s is therefore probably the best option.
 

ASFC

New Member
Correct me if i'm wrong, but the NH-90s are for Coastguard Duties and the new Frigates, and actually an increase in capability (as they replace the 6 Lynxs). The other two helicopter types either not up for replacement or replacement by an as yet undetermined type (i.e. the Seakings)?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Correct me if i'm wrong, but the NH-90s are for Coastguard Duties and the new Frigates, and actually an increase in capability (as they replace the 6 Lynxs). The other two helicopter types either not up for replacement or replacement by an as yet undetermined type (i.e. the Seakings)?
My understanding was that all three types, the Sea Kings, Bell 412s and the Lynx were being replaced by the NH-90. Hence some of my concern.

AFAIK, the Sea Kings are used by the Coast Guard for SAR duties, with the Coast Guard Lynx being used for SAR work and aboard ship.

The Bell 412s are fufil utility roles at present. If someone could point to what info is available on helicopter replacement, it would help. At present, the most info I have come across it questionable.

-Cheers
 

RA1911

Member
I think the Norwegian government was scared over having a debate over their choice, it was decided a long time ago that the choice was going to be JSF but public opinion was in favour of Gripen NG - it's a public election within half a year so...
Where do you have any proof that the public opinion was for the Gripen? I've never seen a serious poll saying this in norwegian media.

Only one political party has voiced an opinion that they prefered a cooperation with Sweden and that's a party with 6-8% of the votes (SV) that also happens to be in the coalition government (hence my previous comment on need for showing that choosing the JSF was both the best both economical and capability wise). All other parties in the parlament have had a pragmatic view on the issue that the best package was to be chosen.
 

RA1911

Member
At present, the transport capability seems to be in transition. The 6 C-130H Hercules are being retired, to be replaced with 4 C-130J Hercs. While the -J is more capable than the -H was, I question the decrease in numbers. I would think that, even with the increased capacity of a -J, a decrease in total numbers a third would represent a drop in total available capacity. This at a time when I would expect Norway to have more involvement in issues away from Norwegian soil and thus have an increase in transportation requirements.
Be aware that the availability of the old Hercs has been less than stellar, so a reduction to 4 new J's won't necessarily be a reduction in aircraft availability. I guess we will have to wait and see how the experience with the 4 new J's as well as the new NATO combined transport fleet will be before any conclusions can be taken on need for additional aircrafts.
 

RA1911

Member
My understanding was that all three types, the Sea Kings, Bell 412s and the Lynx were being replaced by the NH-90. Hence some of my concern.

AFAIK, the Sea Kings are used by the Coast Guard for SAR duties, with the Coast Guard Lynx being used for SAR work and aboard ship.

The Bell 412s are fufil utility roles at present. If someone could point to what info is available on helicopter replacement, it would help. At present, the most info I have come across it questionable.

-Cheers
That's not correct. The new NH-90s will be on the new frigattes as well as the coast guard and thus only replace sea king and lynx. They will not replace the Bell 412.
 

ASFC

New Member
It is correct though that they have an option for 10 more NH-90s on top of the 14 ordered to replace the Seakings, yes?
 

longbow

New Member
It is correct though that they have an option for 10 more NH-90s on top of the 14 ordered to replace the Seakings, yes?
6 of the initial 14 will be equiped with sonar(ASW) and deployed abord the new Nansen-class frigates. The rest will have a more "lite-configuration", and see use as a SAR-platform by the coastguard. We do retain an option for an additional 10, as a possible future replacement for our Bell 412's.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
6 of the initial 14 will be equiped with sonar(ASW) and deployed abord the new Nansen-class frigates. The rest will have a more "lite-configuration", and see use as a SAR-platform by the coastguard. We do retain an option for an additional 10, as a possible future replacement for our Bell 412's.
Okay, just to reiterate (and make sure I understand correctly...) The current plan is to replace the 12 Sea King SAR helicopters and the 6 coastguard Lynx helicopters with 14 NH-90 helicopters. Of these, there will be a 1:1 replacement for the Lynx ASW/naval support role, and 4:3 ratio Sea King SAR replacement. This likely would boost the ASW/naval capability, as IMV the NH-90 can do more (it is larger...) As for the Sea King, it is larger overall than the NH-90, however given the use of composites in the NH-90 it has similar lift capacity to the Sea King IIRC. Also worth noting is that with the likely age of the Sea King fleet (~ 30 years for many navies) it is likely that many of the 12 Sea Kings would be down for maintenance at any given point. More than would happen with the NH-90 being a newer helicopter.

If the plan is only to possibly replace the 18 Bell 412s with 10 separate NH-90s, that could still result in a net drop in capacity, but it would not be as severe as the situation appearred at first.

-Cheers
 

RA1911

Member
Okay, just to reiterate (and make sure I understand correctly...) The current plan is to replace the 12 Sea King SAR helicopters and the 6 coastguard Lynx helicopters with 14 NH-90 helicopters. Of these, there will be a 1:1 replacement for the Lynx ASW/naval support role, and 4:3 ratio Sea King SAR replacement. This likely would boost the ASW/naval capability, as IMV the NH-90 can do more (it is larger...) As for the Sea King, it is larger overall than the NH-90, however given the use of composites in the NH-90 it has similar lift capacity to the Sea King IIRC. Also worth noting is that with the likely age of the Sea King fleet (~ 30 years for many navies) it is likely that many of the 12 Sea Kings would be down for maintenance at any given point. More than would happen with the NH-90 being a newer helicopter.

If the plan is only to possibly replace the 18 Bell 412s with 10 separate NH-90s, that could still result in a net drop in capacity, but it would not be as severe as the situation appearred at first.

-Cheers
For small defence force like the norwegian it makes sense to have as few types as possible. I would be surprised if there will be any decision to replace the 412s with NH-90s before we've gotten some operational experience with the NHs from the navy/coast guard, unless there are some urgent flight hours issues (like with the old Hercs) that I'm not familiar with.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
Yes, they are also the most expensive bid in the Danish contest according to the press. But don't rely on the press for that kind of info. They don't understand it.

And as I explained, F-18 SH are high-end avionics, twin-enigned, carrier-capable, built in small quatity jets. So yeah, it is probably true.

I checked up the numbers on F-22A programme some time ago, the difference between a 60 jets/year MYP and a 20 jets/year MYP adds something like 25-30% to the cost of a stealth jet. And the F-35A will be built in average quantities of more than 100/year - including LRIPs.

Lastly, a lot of the huge amount of R&D money spent on the JSF has been on making it cheap to produce - development of efficient production technology and methods.
okay, we will only know when we get to 2011/12.
You should ask M21Sniper from WAB where he got his number. I recognize it instantly as from the USAF budget estimates "to comp" or "total" - they're then year dollars, TY 2036. Go ahead ask him. Seriously. I mean it. ;)
well, he quit the forum sometimes afterward, a good guy, had a lot of insightful stuff, well respected.
Oh yeah - those then year dollars. No one seem to grasp the concept. :D
we will see, all signs point toward a pretty bleak next few years. The affect that it might have on production, cost is really unknown at this point. Anyhow, this is my economic rant for the month.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
okay, we will only know when we get to 2011/12.
Would be nice to know now, wouldn't it?

well, he quit the forum sometimes afterward, a good guy, had a lot of insightful stuff, well respected.
He wouldn't be the first one to use the numbers straight from the spreadsheet. The JSF is a project that's planned to run for 30-40 (!) years, so all that FY/TY/CY $$$ matters. And with three types of jets A/B/C and two modes of build LRIP/FRP, both with significant quantities involved; shifts in concept away from silk-scarves-wearing-knights-of-the-sky-duelling to sensors/avionics/weapons really making an impact - it would give anyone a headache.

we will see, all signs point toward a pretty bleak next few years. The affect that it might have on production, cost is really unknown at this point. Anyhow, this is my economic rant for the month.
The point about cost, is that there is really little to suggest that it won't come in around the 60 million USD mark. IF it sticks fairly close to the planned production run. Time frames for IOC may slip, imv.

Anyhow, no more ranting on F-35A cost from me. This thread is doing fine without it.

And apols for yelling at ya. ;)
 

regstrup

Member
The norvegian government stated that Gripen NG was not "usable" for the scenarios they had chosen. They also stated that JSF was cheaper than Gripen NG - something I personally don´t believe in.
Well, we really can't know the price of the Gripen NG. There hasen't been build one yet, so how can they know the final price of something, that hasen't even been developed ?

The Gripen NG is not the same plane as the original Gripen. The JSF is flying and the Eurofighter is in production, non of which the Gripen NG is.

This little documentary about the Eurofighters campaignmanager in the norwegian fighter pocurement is asking a lot of quistions about, how fair the deal really was.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jewwVvUUzKs"]Eurofighter campaign in Norway[/ame]
 
Top